Quote Quoting XJChief
View Post
Hello all, my first post here that I've cut and pasted from another forum where this issue is being discussed. I have no legal education so forgive me if my questions seem a bit amateurish.

Well I've been doing a lot of reading and here are some more questions regarding Heller v DC:

DC is not a state so I would think the second amendment is directly applicable to the residents of DC. In fact, wouldn't a DC resident be provided with "raw" protection under the constitution while those of us who reside in states are left with a double set of constitutions?

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.



Does/can this case even address the indoctrination issue of the second amendment with regard to the states?
If you are speaking of the "incorporation" doctrine, I outlined it above.

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!
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.

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/