I believe this topic will make for a good open discussion for readers. Please feel free to comment and offer supporting facts for your comments.

This issue is a bit complicated but I think if you take a second you should be able to understand what is going on. Recently the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in a California case that the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, applies to the state because of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The NRA filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago because it continues to ban guns after the decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller. Coming after the Ninth Circuit Court decision, the Seventh Circuit Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

In its lawsuit against Chicago, now about two-thirds of all the many states have signed amicus briefs in support of the Ninth Circuit Courts ruling to incorporate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

While this all sounds good for enforcing the Second Amendment as an individual right, isn’t this a two-edged sword? By agreeing to the incorporation, aren’t we saying that the federal government is the ultimate authority over the states? If not the Second Amendment being overruled by the Fourteenth, then what else will the federal government snatch away from the states?

Presently, there is a movement in this country to regain state sovereignty. Does signing on to this ruling now claim states are willing to fore go their sovereignty in order to enforce the Second Amendment?

Or better yet. Why is it that we need one Constitutional Amendment to force an existing one? The Second Amendment was one of the original. It was drafted knowing full well the importance of a God given right to self protection and protection from tyranny. Isn’t that good enough? Why do we need to incorporate with the Fourteenth in order to honor the Second?

Tom Remington

Related Posts