|
Besides the fact that the Cruikshank ruling was made in 1875, and you really ought to determine whether and what portions of it continue to be relevant today (they aren't), I think you would benefit signifcantly from taking a legal reasoning or law & society course. Taking such a course would help you organize your thoughts about federalism and how the Bill of Rights fits into national law v. state law v. personal rights.
For example, none of what you're arguing for here has any bearing on what you started the thread with. The firearms legislation in California is enacted by our state Congress while local ordinances are enacted by various local government and regulatory bodies. The 2nd amendment doesn't apply here for a host of reasons. Bringing up the Enforcement Act of 1870, which was passed by the US Congress to deal with Jim Crowe laws, doesn't have anything to do with a local issue in California and it doesn't even mean what you want it to.
If states were held to the standard set forth by Cruikshank, and they held to strict legal formalism (as you also want them to adhere to), states could pass any gun legislation they wanted to and the courts would do nothing.
The Cruikshank case, by the way, is a testament to the Court's self-paralysis that resulted in much harm to the citizens of this nation and the ideals for which it stands. Ironically, it's probably one of the best examples to argue against much of what you've posted in these various threads on gun control and "judicial activism." Please take the time to read the opinions of any cases, the history leading up to them, and the rulings' ramifications before using one for a point in your argument.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|