interesting stuff

Though the outcome is seemingly ok, this ruling is actually very alarming. By interpreting the 2nd amendment using another generic "due process" clause opens the door for re-defining "due process" at a later date. Most alarming is that the US Constitution already applies automatically to States as inalienable, God given. This is a first step to 2nd A removal in WA state. If that was not enough, SCOTUS recently ruled in Heller case interpreting the 2nd A.

So, they said the kid's rights were not infringed on, but that the 2nd amendment applies to states via the 14th amendment? Is that a contradiction?

LoD< It is generally assumed and understood that kids have limited rights. I don't think the courts have ever officially ruled on this one way or the other. Some 14 year old needs to try it.

Ah, that makes sense.

Though the outcome is seemingly ok, this ruling is actually very alarming. By interpreting the 2nd amendment using another generic "due process" clause opens the door for re-defining "due process" at a later date. Most alarming is that the US Constitution already applies automatically to States as inalienable, God given. This is a first step to 2nd A removal in WA state. If that was not enough, SCOTUS recently ruled in Heller case interpreting the 2nd A.

#2 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2010-02-19 12:22 PM

The 14th amendment is used, because that is the amendment that applied the Bill of Rights to the states. After the civil war, the southern states were denying freed slaves their rights, so the 14th amendment was passed.

The Supreme Court of The United States will hear McDonald v Chicago an March 2nd, and they will decide the case, based on the 14th amendment.

Here is a link to the certiorari reply brief that is before the SCOTUS right now. It explains quite well, how the 14th amendment applies.