XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Leif"  wrote in message   
   news:1189738151.651518.235560@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 13, 11:22 am, Peter Franks  wrote:   
   >> Leif wrote:   
   >> > On Sep 13, 4:52 am, "Topp@Work"  wrote:   
   >> >> "Spaz"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> >>news:9LCdnZ1NOcJU5HXbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com...   
   >>   
   >> >>> "RSweeney"  wrote in message   
   >> >>>news:tq2dnRvRTuoP9nXbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@comcast.com...   
   >> >>>> its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be   
   >> >>>> infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it   
   >> >>>> shall   
   >> >>>> not be infringed by Congress.   
   >> >>> That's true.  So there's no reason the local government of San   
   >> >>> Francisco   
   >> >>> can't implement their own gun ban.   
   >> >> Except it violates State law.....   
   >> >> And cities can not violate state law   
   >>   
   >> > Leif speaking: The SECOND AMENDMENT provides no reason why the local   
   >> > government of San Francisco can't implement their own gun ban.   
   >>   
   >> Ya, prior to 1866 that may have been the case.   
   >>   
   >> Amendment XIV changed all of that, though:   
   >>   
   >> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the   
   >> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"- Hide quoted   
   >> text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  The Supreme Court has not incorporated the Second   
   > Amendment against the states.   
      
      
   Which does not mean it doesn't apply, it simply means that SCOTUS hasn't   
   recognized it as applying.   
      
   Hence, you evade the issue with an appeal to authority. Second, you ignore   
   the fact that the 14th doesn't allow a "selective incorporation doctrine" to   
   be used. Rather the 14th says it will apply and anything that contradicts   
   that is a violation of the 14th.   
      
   As such, your statement above can only be seen as the evasion it is.   
      
   > There's no reason why the ever should,   
   > since the Second Amendment was intended to defend the state militia   
   > system.   
      
   And how was it to defend that system? Right, by making sure that people had   
   personal arms in order to provide for that militia.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)