2 Challenge Gun Cases, Citing Bush Policy

[Ed Stone]

And in 1908 in Twining, the USSC found that the 5th amendment was similarly 
a limitation upon the national government, not the state governments, i.e., 
the states are not required by the fifth amendment to abstain from 
requiring a defendant to incriminate himself in testimony. But the first 8 
amendments have been progressively extended to the states by application of 
the 14th amendment.

For example, the fifth circuit, just eight months ago, finds the invididual 
model prevails not only over the national government, but also the states, 
and it declares that Cruikshank fails to "establish any principle governing 
any of the issues.." regarding the 14th amendment's extension of the Bill 
of Rights to limit the power of the states.

"13. In United States v. Cruikshank, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875), the Court held 
that the Second Amendment "is one of the amendments that has no other 
effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

Id. at 592. In Presser v. Illinois, 6 S.Ct. 580, 584 (1886), the Court, 
reaffirming Cruikshank and citing Barron v. Baltimore, 8 L.Ed.
672 (1833), held that the Second "amendment is a limitation only upon the 
power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the 
state." And, in Miller v. Texas, 14 S.Ct. 874 (1894), the Court held, with 
respect to "the second and fourth amendments" that "the restrictions of 
these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference 
whatever to proceedings in state courts," citing Barron v. Baltimore and 
Cruikshank. As these holdings all came well before the Supreme Court began 
the process of incorporating certain provisions of the first eight 
amendments into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and as 
they ultimately rest on a rationale equally applicable to all those 
amendments, none of them establishes any principle governing any of the 
issues now before us."

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html