She’s right that states and municipalities have the right to impose their own gun laws, since 2a is federal in scope, though it would have been more accurate to say “doesn’t apply” rather than “doesn’t exist,” obviously. It does apply. A state can create gun laws but they can’t violate the 2nd amendment.
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 5 months ago
I’m no ConLaw expert, but AFAIK the doctrine remains that the Bill of Rights restricts only federal government, save for the apparently difficult case of part of 7A (due process). Using that clause to incorporate 2A by all accounts remains a jurisprudential Faustian bargain no justices have yet been willing to make.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 5 months ago
No, that isn’t how it works at all. That is a view before the Civil War and partially up till the 1960, but SCOTUS has made it clear. The rights are for everyone, state/federal. The states cannot violate your rights in the constitution.
One of the arguments in Miranda is that the state did not have to follow the 5th Amendment. As you can tell, that did not work as the state thought.
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 5 months ago
Hmm maybe my information is out of date or I just need to review. Which case incorporated 2A? Was it more recent than DC-Heller?
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Miranda is from the 1960’s.
Heller is fairly recent but the only reason scotus took the case is states can’t violate the amendments.
Unless you were born in the 1860’s, it’s been fairly well known that the constitution cannot be violated by states on their citizens.