i think this is the line the 2nd A supporters are taking.
the case that applied the Bill of Rights to the states and not just the federal government is long established; it goes back to 1804 and has been the basis of a bunch of other cases. as you know, precedents are hugely important in law.
there has not been much of an attempt to SPECIFICALLY get the 2nd A spelled out as applying to municipalities; the fact that it WOULD apply, as far as I know, would be reasoning by analogy, which is all well and good and things can fly along like that for years until someone specifically wants confirmation of that at the federal court level. Which is what's been happening now, I think.
There's a bunch of case law IRT to the 2nd A that focuses on federally guaranteed rights already; that's what all the lawyers will be looking at.
As another commenter said -- going back and referring to the "privileges and immunities" clause is opening a differnent line of argument and would be a different approach than is typical. When you have a Bill of Rights argument, you generally go with that, LOL. It's your strongest line of defense, legally! Right there in black and white in the Constitution.
I am not a lawyer but I had to get very interested in Bill of Rights Issues through studying the 1st Amendment, so I'm following these cases with interest too.
The 2nd A is so fascinating, because like the Religious Freedom clause in the 1st A, it has that balance between organized institutions that are typically governmental (mentioning "militia") and individual rights ("the people").
Thanks for the comm. I will probably lurk a lot and try to educate myself.
no subject
the case that applied the Bill of Rights to the states and not just the federal government is long established; it goes back to 1804 and has been the basis of a bunch of other cases. as you know, precedents are hugely important in law.
there has not been much of an attempt to SPECIFICALLY get the 2nd A spelled out as applying to municipalities; the fact that it WOULD apply, as far as I know, would be reasoning by analogy, which is all well and good and things can fly along like that for years until someone specifically wants confirmation of that at the federal court level. Which is what's been happening now, I think.
There's a bunch of case law IRT to the 2nd A that focuses on federally guaranteed rights already; that's what all the lawyers will be looking at.
As another commenter said -- going back and referring to the "privileges and immunities" clause is opening a differnent line of argument and would be a different approach than is typical. When you have a Bill of Rights argument, you generally go with that, LOL. It's your strongest line of defense, legally! Right there in black and white in the Constitution.
I am not a lawyer but I had to get very interested in Bill of Rights Issues through studying the 1st Amendment, so I'm following these cases with interest too.
The 2nd A is so fascinating, because like the Religious Freedom clause in the 1st A, it has that balance between organized institutions that are typically governmental (mentioning "militia") and individual rights ("the people").
Thanks for the comm. I will probably lurk a lot and try to educate myself.