LA Times continues to pretend Nordyke didn't happen

[7x57]

The vast majority of people think the Bill Of Rights is the law of the land, and have never heard of this incorporation BS. I would be willing to bet they would be apalled if they found out how the courts have twisted this.

Hard to blame them, either. I wish someone would exhaustively trace whatever can be known about popular American ideas about the BoR. I'd like to know if, by chance, this is a living cultural memory of what everyone knew the P&I clause really truly did, preserved against all lawyer's protests to the contrary.

I suppose that's improbable, but it would be a lovely irony and I cherish the very thought.

7x57

[CABilly]

"We were disappointed last year when the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, giving short shrift to the first part of the amendment, which refers to "a well-regulated militia." But we also believe the court has been right to use the doctrine of incorporation to bind states to the most important protections of the Bill of Rights. If those vital provisions are to be incorporated in the 14th Amendment, so should the right to keep and bear arms. "

As I read it, the Times is saying they are anti - gun, but the incorporation principle is more important than any single issue. They are endorsing the 14th directly and (grudgingly) bringing the 2nd along for the ride. Sort of a non-endorsment endorsement of the 2nd.

I doubt anyone will remember the specifics of the editorial 2 months from now, but on talking points anyone who is progun will be able to cite it as the Times saying states are required to recognize the 2nd Amendment.

Yep.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Nordyke was mentioned ("...in order to resolve a conflict between the position taken by the 2nd and 7th circuits and the opposite view adopted by the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."), and the paper even editorialized that, while they were disappointed with Heller, they believe that the 2A should be incorporated in the same way that other rights have been ("But we also believe the court has been right to use the doctrine of incorporation to bind states to the most important protections of the Bill of Rights. If those vital provisions are to be incorporated in the 14th Amendment, so should the right to keep and bear arms.")

While I hate the LAT with every fiber of my being, you are reading this editorial wrongly. They appear to be, begrudgingly, on our side in this case.

My sentiments, as well. I despise the La Times, but I think the end result of the article is that like all other Rights in the BoR, it must be incorporated.