How long until MSNBC, CNN, the big 3, and the leftists weaponize this bill??

If they have not already.

So the 4th doesn't apply to the states?Is that the gist of what you are saying?

Stick it in a bill that "we have to pass it to see what's in it".

No, the Bill of Rights was not meant to be applied to the States.  Proposals to make parts of it so applicable failed in Congress.  No court subsequently treated it as such, even for some time after the 14th Amendment was ratified.  He is right in that the 14th Amendment has to be deliberately misinterpreted or "warped" to support incorporation of anything other than the 5th Amendment's due process clause.  The "fuckhead judges" have tended to support perversion of the law and generally do not rule against incorporation doctrine these days, so I'm not sure how you think they are the ones convincing anyone of anything with regard to a non-belief in the incorporation doctrine.

I think the Republicans will bring up lots of bills and push them through for political points because they know their is no way in hell they can override a veto. They are just trying to look like they want the same things we do.

Republicans NEVER had "total control" so stop spreading that dem liberal lie.  Dems were Senate majority for the first 2 years when Jeffords went Independant aka democrap. The 108th Congress had 51 Republicans. The 109th Congress had 55 Republicans.





http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.  

NH decided it was unconstitutional and overturned it. We can carry on school grounds.

Same here in Oklahoma.  As long as you are there to pick up/drop off AND your feet never touch school grounds while the weapon is unsecured (locked up in the vehicle) you're OK.  If you plan on stepping out you need to have the weapon secured in the vehicle in a locked glove compartment, console, lockbox attached to the vehicle, etc.

Yep!  I remember when Reagan balanced the budget and fought hard for small government.

Reagan did not sign this

That's some brilliant fucking reasoning.

So, if they did nothing, you would bash them for that as well, right.

Please show this "was not meant to be applied to the states" somewhere.  By that reasoning, "all men are created equal" is nonsense since you seem to think that states can infringe on rights all they want.

Only one amendment actually lists the Feds as being prohibited from something.

Just about every gun I own in GA would be illegal in CA and you think that the Constitution should not be applied to the states.

We protect our money, homes and selves with guns, our schools deserve the same.

The Bill of Rights does not mention restrictions against the States.  If they are not mentioned, they do not exist.  Such is an old principle of law which was still respected at the time.  You can also look at the legislative history of the amendments to see intent.  The Bill of Rights did not need to mention applicability to the Federal government since that is a given being that it is a document constituting the national government; in certain parts it just limits the restriction to acts of Congress (as opposed to the general government).  Only with the rise of incorporation doctrine well after the ratification of the 14th Amendment (a doctrine which is clearly contrary to the intent of the framers of the amendment and does not plainly arise from the language used in the amendment; it is an example of legislation by judicial fiat) was the idea of application of any part of the Bill of Rights to the States taken seriously because that is the core notion included in the doctrine, that the 14th Amendment created a change whereby the Bill of Rights no longer just applies to the national government, but also to those of the several States.

To be opposed to perversions of the Constitution is not the same as to support gun controul legislation.  The two are separate matters.  I certainly won't shed any tears over the adverse effect bad case law may have on California's gun controul laws, though, but I recognize that such is only being accomplished through a perversion of the law and not on account of obedience to it.

The drafting history of the 14th Amendment, the speeches and debates surrounding its ratification, and the circumstances that led to it being proposed in the first place, all disagree with that position.

Senator Howard, introducing the 14A to the Senate, explained that it would compel the states to respect "these great fundamental guarantees...the personal rights guaranteed by the first eight amendments of the United States Constitution".

Representative Bingham, Ohio: "this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States...The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress ...with the power to enforce this bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today"

Representative Stevens, PA stated that its provisions "are all asserted, in some form or another, in our declaration or organic law. But the Constitution limits only the action of Congress, and is not a limitation on the States. This Amendment supplies that defect, and allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States..."

I could go on, but there's no point as not a single ratification-era source that I've ever read disputes the notion that 14A was intended to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. Just because the Slaughter-House Cases gutted (no pun intended) the P&I Clause doesn't alter what it says and what the legislative intent was. Future courts have been somewhat hamstrung by that court's wrongheaded reading and application of 14A, but they lack the balls to overturn it. See e.g. Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in McDonald v Chicago. Therefore they have turned to incorporation via substantive due process. It is what it is, and hopefully some future court will consign the Slaughter-House Cases to the trashcan of history and restore P&I's meaning to what it was always intended to be.

ETA: If you read many antebellum cases concerning the RKBA, you will find that many State courts already considered the 2A to be a restriction on the States.

Last time I checked, there was only one church that banned ccw in their houses worship.

This.

Good grief.  What a load of nonsense.  The Bill or Rights says neither Federal nor state so I guess the Bill of Rights does not exist.

Perversion of the law.

OOOHHHHH, you are so edgy and cool and you still haven't showed me where the Bill or Rights does not apply to the states.

Not your interpretation or opinion.

I already replied to the first.  The Bill of Rights is in a constitution for a national government.  For the constitution of a government to state its applicability to the government in every instance where something is granted, prescribed, or proscribed would be redundant.  Where there applicability to entities not constituted by the document, the document refers to those entities as necessary.  It does not do so with regard to the proscriptions in the Bill of Rights.

And are you seriously asking me to prove a negative?  What in the Bill of Rights and the words of its framers and of the legislative debates indicates inherent applicability to the States?

too many progressives in the ranks

In VA the GFSZA has been defanged.

Possession of a firearm in a locked case on school property within a locked vehicle is permissible.

 

A good start.

I see no words that indicate that the Bill or Rights do not apply to the states.

You replied alright, more of your OPINION.  That's all it is because you have posted nothing to prove your point.

I didn't ask you to prove a negative.  I asked you to prove where it says that the Bill of Rights only applies against the Federal government.

You post a lot of words to say nothing.

Like I said, according to you, the states are free to just willy nilly violate the rights of citizens.

How about Zero would veto anything they pass.

Yup, never had 60 votes. Dewine, Lugar, Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, Greg, Snowe, Collins, Ron Paul, Peter King. Luckily we had the votes for tax cuts, huge federal employment cuts, repeal Clinton's 1994 AWB, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act etc

+1 now, absolutely. Barry already said he will veto keystone, repeal obamacare 30 hour work week, prohibit daca executive action.

I thought he meant during the Bush years Republicans didn't have the 60 votes.

Never believe ANYTHING you read in GD.

Why can't we get a bill for something useful, like NFA repeal, or at least reform.

Fuck anyone who says this.

The second amendment is NOT a states rights issue.   It is a federally protected right reserved for the individual.

The bill of rights does NOT say "These are the rights that we leave up to the states to decide."  The bill of rights is quite simply a list of limits upon government's power.    If you want to interpret that to mean, "hey, its off limits for this government, but that government is fair game" then the ENTIRE system comes crashing down.  

There are a lot of states rights issues that the federal government is screwing around in these days, where they have no business.    But the protection and preservation of our right to keep and bear arms is absolutely a federal issue.

No.  He signed other anti-gun legislation which is now being fought over in the courts.