[GGReporter]

The State of Texas and 37 other States ... request that the Court divide oral argument for Petitioners, and allow Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, on behalf of the amici States, 10 minutes of argument time. Petitioners support this motion, and have agreed to cede 10 minutes to the amici States.... Because they are sovereign governmental bodies, with strong interests in preventing crime and in maintaining their extant regulations on firearms, the amici States represent interests unique from those of Petitioners. And the amici States are well positioned to address any federalism concerns regarding the application of the Second Amendment to state and local governments.... The amici States firmly believe that the incorporation of the Second Amendment presents no [federalism] concerns. Denying local governments the power to nullify the Amendment will not increase federal power, mandate any state action pursuant to federal directives, or preclude reasonable state and local regulation of firearms. It will simply prevent local governments, like the federal government, from abrogating the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.

More...

[Cyrano]

Anyone notice that 38 states is the number of states required to pass a new Constitutional Amendment? I'm sure the Supreme Court is not going to miss that point.

[AFC-Snowman]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Cyrano

Anyone notice that 38 states is the number of states required to pass a new Constitutional Amendment? I'm sure the Supreme Court is not going to miss that point.

Cyrano, great point! Being raised in Texas, I completely understand the 2nd amendment. However, I do not see the need to put in writing that the federal government can or can not regulate firearms at the state level. Isn't it sort of redundant? or am I missing something?

[AFC-Snowman]

Awe. I read some more on "incorporation". My logic was backwards. Cyrano am I understanding this right?....The 38 states are asking the supreme court to incorporate the 2nd amendment so that it can not be nullified? and if so, what is the point? the government can not take away a right that is in the constitution unless the constitution itself is changed....

[Cyrano]

AFC, my point is merely that 38 states is the 2/3rds majority required to get a new Constitutional Amendment adopted. it means that 2/3rds of the states in the Union think something is a good idea. In this case, the good idea is that the Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is incorporated into states' laws via the Fourteenth Amendment and does in fact give the honest citizens of the United States the absolute, individual right to keep and bear arms. That is not something the Supreme Court can afford to ignore.

The position of a state trumps that of a city. So far, 38 states have lined up on the side of the Good Guys. About four cities have lined up on the side of the Bad Guys. Cities cannot vote to change the Constitution. States can. It's that simple.

[ArkansasHunter]

When Bush jr. was president he was documented saying the GD Constitution is not worth the paper it was written on. I'm sure others in Washington think the same.
We need to move full speed ahead on this issue being discussed. I feel...A.H