http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf
p.47:
In any event, the Supreme Court has unambiguously held that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are in effect in the District. See O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 539-41(1933) (quoting Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 260-61 (1901)....
Simply because Maryland and Virginia ceded part of thier states to the federal government does not divest them of Constitutional protection.
The dissent offers a conflicting analysis??
Of course, not until the 1920's and after was the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states in a succession of rulings. The ratification of the 14th AM in 1868 did not "automatically" make the BOR applicable to the states.
Several provisions are still not applicable, such as the 8the AM's clause of excessive bail.
If you are speaking of the "incorporation" doctrine, I outlined it above.Does/can this case even address the indoctrination issue of the second amendment with regard to the states?
States are free under thier own constitution's to have greater protections than the federal counterpart clauses/AM, however if the USSC rules the right to bear arms as an "individual" right and not just a collective militia one, than the Supremacy Clause of Article 6 makes it the law of the land.Further I'm wondering if SCOTUS rulings can affect state supreme courts. For instance, the State of Hawaii's constitution has the exact same language as the US constitution. If the SCOTUS rules that the 2nd is an individual right would a state's constitution with the exact same wording be tied to the SCOTUS's ruling?
Thanks to anyone who can answer my questions!![]()
You can pull up the SC's own website and read some of the merit briefs filed in the case, but here is transcript of the oral argument. Audio available also.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/..._290/argument/

