Comment by SlowRobotAhead
7 years ago
Someone at Cornell wrote that 2A was incorporated then, but that's ridiculous as if ANYTHING it would have been incorporated federally during 2008's Heller vs DC. If someone attaches the name of a university to something do you automatically take it as fact?
Respectfully, I think you should take a breath and re-read the comments to which you’re responding. I’m as big a supporter of the RKBA as you’ll find, and I didn’t read anything “anti-gun” into them.
This discussion is around the incorporation doctrine, not the Second Amendment.
How would Heller vs. DC have incorporated anything? DC is a federal district; there were no states involved in that case.
As I recall, Heller v. DC established the precedent that the RKBA is an individual right, while McDonald v. Chicago established that the Second Amendment was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendemnt’s “Due Process” clause.
That is correct.
>Heller v. DC established the precedent that the RKBA is an individual right
Yes. Well, it always an individual right 250 years of clear examples in texts, but a lot of people tried "the militia argument" which was funny because "a well regulated militia" was immediately followed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The idea was that antigun people claimed the militia was an official organization like the modern national guard and not the reality of militias which includes any able bodied person able to fight for defense of state and self. Like you and me.
Heller was "the case" the ended the "collective rights" nonsense argument. The SCOTUS case that means the federal government has no power to keep people from bearing arms. All McDonald wanted to do was keep a gun on him outside of his house and IL/Chicago refused to issue permits - the easy way to see the difference is Heller was the people's right, McDonald just clarified it means outside of your home.
1 reply →
> if ANYTHING it would have been incorporated federally
> incorporated federally
From Wikipedia:
> Incorporation […] is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states.
You seem to be operating outside of your area of expertise. There is no such thing as "federal incorporation" because the Constitution already applies to the federal government.
I recommend reading (at least the very end of) the majority opinion in McDonald before making any further arguments about which case established what.