An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The 2nd Amendment and the Revenge of the Incorporation Doctrine

With a hat tip to Reason.com we find out from the CrimeProf Blog that there’s an ill wind blowing for Second Amendment enthusiasts from the Second Circuit Court. It comes in the form of Maloney v. Cuomo and brings the Incorporation Doctrine roaring back on the scene.

The Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms does not apply to override state firearms bans, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declared Jan. 28. Under the incorporation doctrine, only certain provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, and the Second Amendment is one of those that does not, the Second Circuit held (Maloney v. Cuomo, 2d Cir., No. 07-0581-cv, 1/28/09).

The statute at the center of this case, N.Y. Penal Law §265.01(1), provides criminal penalties for possession of a broad range of items, including weapons used in martial arts. The plaintiff was charged under the statute after police found fighting sticks, or nunchaku, in his home. He ended up pleading guilty to a different charge and then filed a lawsuit against the county prosecutor and others seeking a declaration that the law offends his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

You can read the entire decision here, but the majority opinion pulled no punches on Incorporation vs. the Second Amendment, and the Bill of Rights once again came out on the short end of the stick. I can already hear some of you arguing, “Wait a minute! Didn’t we just win this fight? What about District of Columbia vs. Heller?” The Second Appellate was quick to preempt that line of thinking by weaving Heller into their current decision.

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. The Supreme Court recently held that this confers an individual right on citizens to keep and bear arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799 (2008). It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right. See, e.g., Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (stating that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state”); Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding “that the Second Amendment’s ‘right to keep and bear arms’ imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts” and noting that this outcome was compelled by Presser), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006). Heller, a case involving a challenge to the District of Columbia’s general prohibition on handguns, does not invalidate this longstanding principle.

Each time questions of the Incorporation Doctrine arise, we always seem to get a few readers who are floored to find out that this is almost uniformly considered stare decisis among jurists. Many of us wander about, secure in the comforting but completely illusory notion that the entire bill of rights protects us like a blanket. In point of fact, the bill of rights protects you from actions by the Federal government, but several of those rights may be trumped by your home state’s legislature at the drop of a hat. This includes your right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court pretty much set this in stone back in 1963 with their decision in Gideon v. Wainwright.

“This Court has looked to the fundamental nature of original Bill of Rights guarantees to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes them obligatory on the States. Explicitly recognized to be of this “fundamental nature” and therefore made immune from state invasion by the Fourteenth, or some part of it, are the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances. For the same reason, though not always in precisely the same terminology, the Court has made obligatory on the States the Fifth Amendment’s command that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Eighth’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.” See Gideon 372 U.S. at 341-42.

Those are the rights which have been “incorporated” from the Federal level and mandated to the states. You will note that the Second Amendment is not among them, along with several others. The bottom line is that Heller has ensured that the Federal Government won’t be restricting your individual right to keep and bear arms any time soon. But if the state where you live decides that you’ll get life without parole for having a Daisy air rifle in your closet, you’d best pack a bag and find somebody to smuggle cigarettes for you, because you’re heading for the crowbar motel anyway.

  • timr
    Why would some of the bill of rights apply to everyone, but not others?This makes no sense to me. This case is going to go to the SCOTUS and since they ruled on the 2nd amendment there are a great many gun rights cases winding thru the courts. The current SCOTUS has already made rulings that have overturned precedent so I would not be so sure that they will rule the way you believe they will. 5 conservatives who believe in the 2nd amendment, plus the NRA spending millions on various court cases in the belief that what has already been ruled also covers their cases says that you are wrong. Also, SCOTUS never ruled against the govt right to control firearms before the current court did, so how does that ruling effect your premise?
  • timr
    I get the feeling that all these court cases cited were from what one might call "liberal" courts. Also, times change as do attitudes, so the current court might just believe the opposite. Again, why do some of the Bill of Rights apply to everyone, yet others-that might make govt uncomfotable for example-do not. It will be interesting to see if the NRA lawyers who are going with cases from all over the country are right, or if you are.
  • You see, Tim, this isn't a case of asking SCOTUS to rule on the 2nd amendment or gun / weapons rights in general. If they even agreed to hear the case, they would be asked to overturn more than 100 years of precedent in defining which of our rights are "fundamental" in nature such that the Federal mandate overrides the rights of the individual states. In order to overturn this one, the list of "Incorporated" rights would have to be expanded to include the 2nd amendment. I'm not saying they wouldn't or couldn't, but it would be a remarkable change in direction and very much against the old, states' rights mantra.
  • timr
    After rereading your post for the 4th time I think that this comment might be of interest. When the US congress imposed restrictions on handgun magazine capacity and outlawed long guns based not on what they could do-ie semi or fully automatic-but on whether or not they looked like MBRs-Main Battle Rifles-this law applied to everyone in the US and in fact overrode state laws.-That congress, if I am not mistaken, used the 2nd amendment as a basis for that ruling. So again, why should some amendments to the constitution-like women being able to vote-apply to every state, and override state law, yet others-what other amendments other than the 2nd has this ever been applied to?-do not.-Re the Surpreme Court ruling on movies being included in the "Freedom of the Press" amendment, which overrode all state laws that censored movies-of course battles raged for many years on this subject, but I do not believe that it was ever postulated that Freedom of the Press did not apply in every state.
  • timr
    Jazz, if this is the case, then how could the the amendment that allowed women the vote apply to every one? how could the SCOTUS ruling way back in the 50s about movie censorship and how movies came under the freedom of the press apply to all states? How could the congress rule on restricting guns apply to all the states, yet the opposite not apply? How can you apply some ammendments to everyone yet exclude others? The NRA is sheparding several cases thru several different states, it will be interesting to see how this SCOTUS decides these cases. What other amendments do not apply to everyone? Freedom of the press? How about freedom to assemble? Women voting? Do any others fall uner this? Howcome the SCOTUS can force the freedom of religion-over state sponsorship-on the states? How about Brown v BoE? If gun laws in the states trump the federal system then how could congress impose the gun laws that they did which were effective over all the states? I
    really can not wrap my mind around this concept that some amendments can be enforced on states no matter what they think, while others-esp portions the Bill of Rights(taught in all schools that these rights apply to everyone)do not.
                                                                                          Timr
  • Tim, you're preaching to the choir. Note that noplace in the article did I say I agree with. I'm just giving you the background. How Justice Black's court settled on their list of rights which are "fundamental" and which are not is a bit of a mystery to me, though they did publish separate writings later on the subject. But for the time being, should this case go to SCOTUS, the opposition will cite more then 3 dozen cases dating back to the late 1800's up through the end of the 20th century where the justices have agreed on this matter. Why? Again, I have no idea.
  • PJBFan
    After reading your comments, Jazz, and Tim, the incorporation doctrine has expanded several times in the not too distant past, the last case being Boy Scouts of America v. Dale which incorporated, though not explicitly, the right to expressive association. It is possible that the Second Amendment could be incorporated, although it would take what is required to overcome Stare Decisis.

    Tim, as to your comments about some rights in the Constitution applying "to some states and not to others." That is a mischaracterisation of the issue. The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are guaranteed at the federal level only, unless incorporated pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Unless a constitutional amendment is specifically directed at the states, it does not apply to them, unless it is incorporated. Thus, prior to the incorporation of the respective parts of the First Amendment did not apply when state governments restricted speech, only the federal government could be stopped from restricting speech. The rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution are federal in nature, only, unless they are made applicable to the states. As to the comparison with the Nineteenth Amendment, it is inapt. Because the federal constitution regulates the qualifications to vote, in regards to voting age, and gender, the Nineteent Amendment, without needing to so state, applied to the states because of the nature of the text.
  • robscottw
    The problem with this analysis is that the SC has not re-visited the incorporation question as regards the 2A.

    Virtually all the other RIGHTS in the BofR have been incorporated subsequent to the 1878 decision in Cruishank which noted that neither the 1st or 2nd Amendments "created" those rights, but "protected" previously existing rights, and that the effect of the BofR was to restrain the Federal gov't from infringing those rights. The SC said individuals must look to their own states for protection of those rights. Cruishank of course involved the prosecution of WHITE klan "night-riders" who dis-armed and killed free blacks in the post Civil-war South.

    Judge Thomas in a previous decision, and Scalia in Heller, both signaled that such a review would meet a receptive audience on the court. And there would be no reason NOT to over-turn "precedent". The court over-turned "seperate but equal", and the SC has stated that over-ruling previous "bad" precedent is the right thing to do. Please note that in Griswold (a post ROE case involving abortion) the court implicity included the right to keep and bear arms in their list of rights guaranteed to the "people".

    There is no way an anti-incorpation decision can pass the LAUGH test. If this or another case gets to the SC and they attempt to wriggle out of incorporting the 2A it wil generate a REAL firestorm. ALL the evidence points to the FUNDAMENTAL nature of the individual right to arms protected by the 2A, even before the 14A. And the 14th was enacted in order to make possible for blacks to defend themselves in the now free South.

    Gun rights are on the march. People in opposition better think about getting out of the way unless they want to reap some un-intended consequences.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC