Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilted  This is a totally different situation. The First Amendment has clearly been incorporated against the states. In fact, freedom of speech, in specific, was one of the earliest guarantees to be incorporated against the states. With regard to the Second Amendment not applying to the states yet, the COSA was probably right. At the very least, one can't argue that it was clearly wrong.
What I disagree with is the assertion that Maryland Code § 4-203, as is, would not be in violation of the Constitution, according to Heller, if and when the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states. There is certainly much room for debate on that issue, though.
The good news is, if McDonald v Chicago goes the way I think it will, we will eventually get that debate - and an answer one way or the other. |
Article 2 of the MD Constitution:
The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.
In other words, it doesn't matter what the MD Constitution or law says or doesn't say...the US Constitution is the supreme law. If the US Constitution gives a right, we have it no matter what the MD Constitution says. The MD Constitution could specifically say that the people cannot own firearms and it wouldn't matter.