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:1189739690.866186.77670@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 13, 3:00 pm, "Scout"   
   >  wrote:   
   >> "Leif"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:1189707451.827623.145790@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > 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.   
   >>   
   >> See 14th Amendment.   
   >>   
   >> Oh, I can hear you now claiming that the 2nd hasn't been incorporated.   
   >>   
   >> If that is your response, then kindly show me where the 14th allows for   
   >> incorporation.- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  The 14th says nothing about incorporation,   
      
   Correct, which means that there is no allowance for such a "selective   
   incorporation doctrine" to exist.   
      
   > but if the   
   > Supreme Court had not used it for that purpose many of our present   
   > rights might not be enforceable against the states.   
      
   Sorry, but they could have applied the 14th without any recourse to   
   selective, and limited, application of the 14th. They could actually have   
   read the 14th and noted that it applies IN FULL to the states. Instead they   
   have perverted and subverted the 14th by accepting a principle that the 14th   
   doesn't really mean what it says until SCOTUS gets around to actually noting   
   that it does.   
      
   >  Article III,   
   > Section II, says,   "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in   
   > law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the   
   > United States..."  The Supreme Court has the power to determine what   
   > the law, including the Constitution, means.  I realize that you think   
   > it shouldn't have that power.   
      
   Sorry, but SCOTUS can no more violate the terms of the 14th than they can   
   any other part of the Constitution. The 14th makes no provision that it will   
   only apply in part, or for specific rights through some "selective   
   incorporation doctrine", but rather that was an invention of SCOTUS and   
   utterly unsupported by the Constitution. See the 10th Amendment for details.   
      
   I will simply note that you can't contest the 14th and have for your defense   
   only the fact that SCOTUS hasn't incorporated the 2nd. Doesn't mean they   
   shouldn't have. Doesn't mean they can't. It also doesn't mean they won't.   
   You sound like a racist saying that racial discrimination is perfectly fine   
   since SCOTUS hasn't applied the 14th to those violations.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)