From: [c d t] at [sw.stratus.com] (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Constitutional Law and Gun Control
Date: 12 May 1994 19:14:12 GMT

In article <[C p ML 68 E 5 K] at [world.std.com]>, [j--n--e] at [world.std.com] (John McEnerney) writes:

> Has any ruling ever been made 
> that, like the 1st, the rights guaranteed under the 2nd cannot be 
> infringed by the States?

In shorthand, this subject is known as "14th Amendment incorporation of
the Second Amendment."  

Despite clear legislative intent that the 14th Amendment was to apply 
the ENTIRE Bill of Rights to the states, the Supreme Court has taken 
the position that it must approve claims of incorporation individually
for each Amendment, if not for each individual piece of each Amendment!

The parts of the Bill of Rights that so far have been incorporated 
are the First, Fourth, Fifth minus "Grand Jury," Sixth, Seventh 
minus "Jury trial in civil suits," and Eighth minus "excessive bail."

Not precisely what the sponsors of the 14th intended:

         The noted Reconstruction historian Eric Foner recently
         observed:

         The states,  declared Michigan  Sen. Jacob  Howard, who
         guided the Amendment to passage in the Senate, could no
         longer infringe on the liberties the Bill of Rights had
         secured against  federal  violation;  henceforth,  they
         must  respect   "the  personal  rights  guaranteed  and
         secured by  the first  eight Amendments."   Bingham
         said much the same thing in the House.  Some
         portions of the Bill of Rights were of little moment in
         1866 (no  was threatening to quarter soldiers in a home
         without consent  of the  owner).   But it is abundantly
         clear that  Republicans wished  to give  constitutional
         sanction to  states' obligation  to  respect  such  key
         provisions as  freedom of  speech, *the  right  to  bear
         arms*, trial  by impartial  jury, and protection against
         cruel and  unusual punishment  and unreasonable  search
         and seizure.   The  Freedmen's Bureau had already taken
         steps to  protect these  rights, and  the Amendment was
         deemed necessary,  in part, precisely because every one
         of them  was being systematically violated in the South
         in 1866.[157] [emphasis added]

        ____________________________________________________________
         157 Eric Foner, _Reconstruction_, (New York, Harper & Row:
         1988), 258-259.


[See CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong.,1st Sess.,pt.3,2765 (23 May 1866)]

A previous post by Frank Crary explains more about how the Supreme
Court got where it has:

 That's correct. However, the first time the Supreme Court was ruled
 on the subject, in the "Slaughterhouse case", Butchers' Benevolent
 Assocation v. Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Company
 83 US 36 (1873), the Court completely rejected the intended meaning
 of the clause you refer to, protecting the "privilages and immunities"
 of all citizens. They basically didn't like the implications of
 applying the Bill of Rights to the states, so they invented an
 interpertation to avoid that. Later, on a case by case basis,
 the Court has ruled that parts of the Bill of Rights _are_ protected.
 Not by the "privilages and immunities" clause, but by the ban
 on any state denying "live, liberty or property without due process
 of law." Basically, they have defined "liberty" to include such things
 as freedom of speach. Unfortunately, this reasoning (intended to
 offer the protections the Fourteenth Amendment was supposed to
 offer) also leaves a back door open for regulation: If the restriction
 follows the "due process of law", the Court will not overturn
 it. What, exactly, that means isn't clear. The Court has said
 it includes being passed by the legislature which had some
 vaguely rational reason for doing so. In some cases, the protected
 right is, according to the Court, "fundamental to ordered liberty"
 and therefore can't be restricted by legislature except for really
 compelling reasons (i.e. restricting freedom of assembly during
 a riot.)
-- 

[c d t] at [rocket.sw.stratus.com]   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR [c d t] at [vos.stratus.com]        write today for my special Investors' Packet...