The debate over whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable against the states all of the protections of the Bill of Rights is one of the most important and longest-lasting debates involving interpretation of the U. S. Constitution.
Selective incorporation is the means by which the Supreme Court has, over time, applied most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to all citizens through an interpretation of the 14th Amendment's due process clause.
The Bill of Rights, when ratified in 1791, DID NOT apply to the states. Thus varying degrees of civil liberties were quite common from state to state. This was federalism in action. But what if certain inalienable rights, rights which when defended forged our union, were at best uninforced and worse disregarded in some states? Was our republic founded on false pretense? With the passing of the 14th Amendment, in 1868, a new era of civil liberty was born. Section 1 states: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens...nor deprive any person...without due process of law...nor deny...the equal protection of the laws.” Soon thereafter, the Supreme Court began exploring the reach of such words. In the Slaughterhouse cases (1873) it was argued that certain privileges and immunities “belong of right to the citizens of all free governments.” Yet it was not until 1925, in the case Gitlow v. N.Y., when a Court majority for the first time applied such thinking to a specific provision found in the Bill of Rights. Here, the Court for the first time used the language of the 14th Amendment to “incorporate” the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment. Thus, the Supreme Court, not local state governments, became the overseer of basic civil liberties.
A chart of amendments incorporated by decisions by the Supreme Court's judicial review is at the back of your current packet. The sides of the constitutional conflict of incorporation is linked here: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm
So what about the 2nd Amendment and the right to "love my guns?" Washington D.C.'s law banning the owning of handguns had been on the books since 1976, when a federal appeals court three-judge pannel swept aside the Capitol City's anti-gun law. Chicago has a similar law. If the Supreme Court gants D.C. a writ of certiori and hears the case, the 2nd Amendment might be on the way to be fully incorporated.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-guns_wed1sep05,1,2446780.story
And in light of deadly school shootings at Virginia Tech last year -- and a reported 8 percent reduction in Chicago homicide's since the ordinance that bans possession of handguns in the home -- (from the soap box) it will give me another reason the question the logic of our federal government.
4 comments:
Although I have conservative views, I proclaim gun control as common sense. Those that argue that people are the ones that kill others are somewhat correct but they are ignorant to say that guns are without blame. GUNS ARE THE MEANS IN WHICH PEOPLE KILL OTHERS. If their is gun control their would be less gun related crime, as seen by the NUMBERS IN CHICAGO regarding gun crime after the ordinance took place.
In addition, many argue that people who are determined to kill will get their hands on guns some way or another. Although this is true, gun control will severly hurt the chances of actually finding a gun and getting it. The shooter at Virginia Tech had such ease in getting a gun. If their are stricter rules, he would have had to work very very hard to get the guns he used, which could have lowered his chances of actually carrying out the killings.
In a practical sense, America is infested, yes infested, with guns. There is no logical excuse for why everyday citizens/civilians need to own a gun.
The second ammendment clearly states that owning of firearms is a right reserved for the state militia - never does it mention ordinary citizens. Sreeharsha is right to say that someone bent on killing someone will do it, but guns greatly facilitate killing others.
I have no problem with citizens having arms that they can use to go hunting, but that is it. Joe Smith should not have access to a powerful handgun which was designed to hurt PEOPLE. Controlling and better monitoring guns should be a top priority of the government.
I'll come out and say it - I love guns. But, despite that, I am a very strong advocate of gun control. People need to understand firearms for what they really are: weapons that should never be taken lightly.
The second amendment allows for the possession of firearms in the state militia (which we now know as the National Guard). As such, firearms like military long rifles and service pistols should only be accessible to members of the armed forces. Now, if this were Switzerland and all citizens were part of the militia, it would be permissible for us all to own assault weapons, but it is not, so if the general public wants to shoot high powered weapons, they should join the military or law enforcement, where such weaponry is necessary.
Hunting weapons on the other hand are all well and good, and concerning smaller weapons such as pistols and carbines, single shot small caliber weapons may be permissible. Any firearm can be used against a human being, but at the very least a hunting rifle will not be quite so conducive to shooting sprees as say, an AR15 modified to be civilian-legal (which by the way, could easily be modified into a fully automatic by simply switching the lower half).
The only firearms sold to civilians should be sporting weapons. Normal citizens have no business owning weapons that are none too far from their military models. America's gun industry may suffer, but what does that matter in an age where most of the US military's small arms are produced by foreign firms (Fabrique Nationale of Belgium, Heckler & Koch of Germany, etc) anyway?
Keep the civilian populace safe, keep combat weapons out of their hands and in the capable hands of personnel trained and qualified to use them, and above all, keep the populace educated on just how dangerous any firearm can be.
Let's imagine for a moment that every single firearm in America was turned in. Fine, now what's stopping criminals from attacking us in our homes?
I am a strong supporter of the "castle doctrine," which basically says you do not need to retreat if you are attacked by a criminal. Believe it or not, most state laws say, or at least imply, that you have a "duty to retreat" when you are attacked. This is absolute nonsense. As far as I am concerned, if a criminal attacks you, especially in your home, you do not need to waste time begging for nonexistent mercy. Who knows if the guy in your living room is a psychopath?
Also, yes, guns are used in many killings, but even more people are killed each year in collisions. This is not a different situation. 42,000 deaths per year are 42,000 deaths, plain and simple. If you don't like guns, that's fine, you have the right to feel this way, but don't try to take away my rights as a shooter.
Post a Comment