-----Original Message----- >From: "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Jul 25, 2007 4:31 PM >To: List Firearms Reg <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: The REPUBLICAN ... from New York. > > Recall that Barron rested on the view -- in my view, a correct >reading of the original meaning of the Bill of Rights -- that none of >the rights in the federal Bill of Rights applied to the states. This is >quite consistent with the notion that some of the rights are natural >rights; it just means that when a state, for instance, took property >without compensation, it would be violating natural rights -- which the >federal constitution doesn't generally protect against state governments >-- and not violating the federal constitution.
Quite so. The existence of a specifically federal right would be a prerequisite to suing in federal court. The argument then would be -- it's a state issue, sue in state court, argue it's a nonenumerated right, cite the federal guarantee, and see if the state court agrees. The federal recognition may be evidence of a state right, but it isn't a basis for suing in federal court. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
