let me look

You might actually be right on that date... I thought it was sooner... take a look at this
Penal Law § 265.01(1)). On April 20, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Nordyke v. King held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment and applied it against the states and local governments.Sep

McDonald v Chicago is what you're looking for.

Once the 2nd Amendment is incorporated and applies to the States (as we both agree is the case right now) - then we can look to the text of the Amendment itself and that is were opinions differ and, as I said, even the SCOTUS was split 5 to 4

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521

Ok yeah I see... there were a lot of cases kinda back to back there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

Having said that... for some reason I thought the SCOTUS had incorporated the 2nd Amendment more than just 10 years ago... that is kinda crazy thinking about it

Because there wasn't much reason to bring it up prior to the 20th century.

Yeah... I guess so... still seems odd to me. But that is clearly the case. The first time that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States was in 2010...

Kinda cool... living breathing document.

States didn't really regulate firearms much until automatic firearms became a thing.

I guess that is probably true.... I was just born in 1995 so maybe just in my mind it seems odd... I dunno

Back in 1776 we had cannons and muskets.

Basically a portable cannon.

Of course... that is the first time the court ruled that way... if we use the logic they used to apply it then technically we could say that it applied to the States after the 14th Amendment was ratified..... but the SCOTUS just had not yet ruled on it

You see what I am saying?

If the SCOTUS said that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States via the 14th Amendment... then obviously it applied the moment the 14th was ratified... they court just did not have a case come before them until 2010

Sure. I still disagree that the founders didn't want to apply it to state law though, not that it's worth much in the scheme of things.

LOL... well ok.. but if that is the case then you are not as much disagreeing with me... but rather 150 years of SCOTUS rulings

Sure I'll disagree with SCOTUS rulings, quite a few I disagree with already.

Well... on that particular issue (the first 10 Amendments applying to the States) that was pretty roundly agreed upon. They didn't really like it that they didn't apply. You can tell that the SCOTUS really WANTED to apply them to the States which is why they came up with the Doctrine of Incorporation.

And if the courts remain as unbalanced as they are now, I'm sure you're going to disagree with a lot of SCOTUS rulings too.

No doubt about it

I can drive my car in all 50 states... why can I carry my..........

I will... Citizens United was a fucking horrible case

driving is a privalege. 2a is a right.

hmmm

um.... laws

what?

Laws is the reason... I mean I don't know how else to put it.

Are you not a proponent of State's Rights?

Indeed imagine for a moment if the first amendment was something the states had full power over.

I like states rights when they aren't inherently what we deem unalienable rights of citizens.

States can't pass law that is above the bill of rights yet they do.

laws laws laws

Yeppers... totally agree and so did the Court. I personally think the Court was right and as the Amendments were written especially when looking at the entire document the first 10 Amendment simply did not apply to the States.

They really really WANTED to start making sure that the States did not go all crazy nazi (before nazis existed) and protect the people a bit more

Well that is a matter of opinion.... It is true that the Federal Constitution is the floor as to rights so a State can give you MORE freedom than does the US Constitution but they can't take them away.

I just don't know of any laws that currently exist in any states that does away with any US Constitutional rights.

Citizens United was a Stupid decision. We can agree on that

what are you serious @JD~Jordan are you like bat shit crazy please explain again what you are trying to say with that!!! the 10th and all!!!

Its easily one of the worst decisions ever

No ad hominem attacks please.

I am saying that I do not know of any State law that is currently being enforced that violates the US Constitution.

Yes, the 10th does explicitly say "powers that are not limited by the constitution are the rights of the states."

Yeppers.... so the 9th and 10th Amendments still only apply to the Federal Government.