Right (sort of...COTUS isn't attempting to establish any standard here, other than adherence to the Full Faith & Credit clause.) I didn't say it was a states' rights issue. I said it was being framed (by others) as one.Liko81 wrote:OK, well, the Feds are trying to get the States to pay attention to a document the states do NOT have the right to ignore. Wherever the COTUS establishes a minimum standard, neither the Fed nor the States is allowed to enforce a lesser one, and wherever the COTUS outlaws a restriction or specifies the limit of a type of restriction, the States cannot impose one.
The 2A is thus not a States' Rights issue
Thanks. I'm well aware of all that, and if you read my previous posts you'll find that I was in agreement with you., or if it is argued as a States' Rights issue, they don't have the right claimed; every American citizen, born or naturalized, is subject to and benefits from the provisions of the Constitution, and the States are not given the right or power to contradict that. The Fourteenth Amendment enforces that supremacy of Constitutional law in its first two sentences:
We are Americans first, and Texans (or New Yorkers or Tennesseeans or Californians) second. The 14A overrides Cruikshank and Presser, which did specifically state that the Second Amendment applied only to the Feds, and was the basis for the decision in Duncan v Louisiana, a lesser-known case that incorporated the Sixth Amendment to the States, but in its ruling quoted the author of the Fourteenth Amendment who said ALL of the first eight Amendments were "privileges and immunities" as mentioned in A4, S2 of COTUS and protected against State incursion with the 14A.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...
