What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights?

[Neverwinter]

At any rate, anyone who valued freedom or rights would prefer an outcome with more and better protected rights to one with less, even if in some hypothetical situation the difference was small.

NFA34 and GCA68 are not hypothetical and they do not increase or better protect our Second Amendment rights.

Case in point.

Sorry azmjs, you're not going to get any traction in that argument with people for whom civil rights such as women's suffrage and desegregation does not appear on the radar. The RKBA context of this forum encourages that narrow-mindedness in discussing civil rights, as evidenced by the following post:

Is that all that matters?

I guess you don't care about freedom of speech or the press. I guess you don't care about free exercise of religion or the right of assembly or the right to petition government for the redress of grievances. Perhaps the right to confront your accuser in court doesn't matter to you. How about the right to remain silent?

What do you mean, "Is that all that matters?" This is a gun board, after all. Regardless, discussing one right covered by the "Bill of Rights" in this context IS discussing all of them

There is no basis for the nearly-religious conviction that many seem to have that the position of the federal government is automatically better than that of state and local authorities.

The federal government operates on the basis of what is laid out in the Constitution, with all the enumerated powers and responsibilities. When the federal government protects the people from the whims of the state and local authorities based on constitutional law, supporting that action isn't "nearly-religious conviction that federal government is automatically better".

 

[azmjs]

NFA34 and GCA68 are not hypothetical and they do not increase or better protect our Second Amendment rights.



There is no basis for the nearly-religious conviction that many seem to have that the position of the federal government is automatically better than that of state and local authorities.

I don't know anything about religious convictions, or things being automatic, but there is an enormous historical basis in facts of the federal government's position usually being better than that of the states.

Neither the NFA nor the GCA impact our ability to own a gun, they have no obvious second amendment implications.

 

[azmjs]

Case in point.

Sorry azmjs, you're not going to get any traction in that argument with people for whom civil rights such as women's suffrage and desegregation does not appear on the radar. The RKBA context of this forum encourages that narrow-mindedness in discussing civil rights, as evidenced by the following post:

Indeed.

I think it in part comes from so many gun enthusiasts being from demographics that historically haven't had to worry about the government trampling on them. Which are also the demographics that haven't necessarily been enthusiastic or supportive of past instances of the federal government stepping in to stop it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Woody, enjoy your alternate universe. Whether you accept the premise or not is irrelevant.

I'd rather you exercise your knowledge and understanding of the Constitution to show me just where you find in the Constitution where ANYTHING in the Constitution can be ignored unless and until the Court decides to incorporate it. What is disturbing to me is that you accept the premise.

In the real world, as regards the Bill of Rights, that "premise" was established in 1833 by the ruling of SOCTUS in Barron. Perhaps there was no such ruling in your alternate universe, but there was in this one.

Your opinion is just your opinion and really has no bearing on what is happening in the real world. The opinions of SCOTUS do, however, have a bearing on what is happening in the real world, and that's why they trump yours.

The only time the opinion of the Court trumps anyone else's opinion is when the Court can get enforcement personnel to throw you in jail, take your money and possessions, or execute you.

Yes, since the opinion of a court can do that, and you with your opinion can not, that indeed counts a trumping your opinion. And a court can have other effects in the real world, such as issuing orders preventing enforcement personnel from doing such things. Courts affect things, your opinion about the law does not.

...Everything in the Fourteenth Amendment was incorporated the very day it was ratified just like every other amendment to the Constitution...

Just further evidence of you inability or unwillingness to understand how law works.

When everyone is satisfied by the actions of government (federal, state or local), all is well. But when someone objects to an action of government as being repugnant under the Constitution (or any other law), and takes the matter to court, the court must decide if and how the Constitution (or any other law) applies to resolve the dispute. Incorporation is a way of describing application of the Bill of Rights against States through the 14th Amendment in the course of resolving disputes regarding actions of state and local governmental entities.

Without the Bill of Right made applicable to a State, a State in theory, if the fervent wish of a majority, allow searches of an individual and his private property without his consent, without warrant and without probable cause. Is it then tyranny for that possibility to be foreclosed by the Bill of Rights being made applicable to the States?

If I understand your grammatically incongruent statement correctly, the answer to your question is, "No." That state joined the Union, and in doing so agreed to abide the Constitution, and had the opportunity to vote on the amendment if it was a member of the Union at the time the amendment was presented for ratification..

[1] There was a typo. The sentence should have read, "Without the Bill of Right made applicable to a State, a State in theory, if the fervent wish of a majority, could allow searches of an individual and his private property without his consent, without warrant and without probable cause."

[2] But again, only in your alternate universe. In the real world, under Barron, the 4th Amendment would not apply to constrain the States from permitting unreasonable searches and seizures, absent the doctrine of incorporation.

 

[gc70]

Neither the NFA nor the GCA impact our ability to own a gun, they have no obvious second amendment implications.

No Second Amendment implications? Any 'prohibited person' or anyone who wants a new full auto weapon just might disagree.

 

[azmjs]

And neither a prohibited person nor someone who wants a new full auto machine gun will find his desires satisfied by the second amendment.