"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:52:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


It appears you don't know what the framers intended with the Bill of
Rights.

Tell us, Mr. Historian, why is it that the states would demand a Bill of
Rights, only to find that it was a set of restrictions on what the STATES
could legislate? Do you think the states were screaming for the federal
government to limit their power?

Actually, the Bill of Rights was demanded by Individuals (Mason and
his buds,) not the States.

Not true. The legislatures of five states made requests or demands for a
Bill of Rights: Massachusetts; South Carolina; New Hampshire; Virginia; and
New York. Rhode Island wouldn't even conditionally ratify until after the
Bill of Rights was submitted. We're talking about entire state legislatures
here, not just a few individuals.

The States had their own Constitutions and
Bills of Rights.

That's quite true. And the states were not about to have the federal
government tell them what could or could not be included.

Keep in mind that this was to be a Union of
Sovereign political bodies called States, not a amalgamation with no
unique individual political boundaries or differences.

I don't know why you're bringing this stuff up, Gunner, because it supports
the opposite of the point you were trying to make: that the federal Bill of
Rights somehow applied over the heads of the states. The states wouldn't
have stood for it.

In fact, your own quote below confirms the point, the OPPOSITE of what you
were claiming:

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by
the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in
Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that
understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting
his claim on the Fifth Amendment's requirement that private property
not be taken for public use "without just compensation." Marshall
ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended "solely as a limitation on
the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is
not applicable to the legislation of the states."

snip

Gunner

Do you remember what it was you were arguing, in other words, or did you get
confused along the way?

What you've just quoted is exactly what I said, that the Bill of Rights was
a limitation on the power of the FEDERAL government, not on that of the
states. Thus, in regard to the 2nd Amendment, the states could do what they
want. That's the status of the law today.

Ed Huntress