XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   Leif wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Help me understand the constitutional basis for 'incorporation'...  I   
   can't find anything about selective application in Amendment XIV, or   
   anywhere else in the Constitution for that matter...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)