My post below about yesterday's Washington Supreme Court case reminded me that a week before the Kentucky Supreme Court expressed the same view:
Moreover, the statute provides that personal property is merely subject to forfeiture, meaning that the Commonwealth's argument in favor of automatic forfeiture [of the firearms] cannot be correct, especially in light of the fact that citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms and a right to due process of law. [Footnote: Ky. Const. §§ 1(7), 11; U.S. Const. amend. II, V, and XIV.]
Brewer v. Commonwealth, 2006 WL 3386645, *3 & n.5 (Nov. 22, 2006).
I should note that the dominant view in state courts remains that the Second Amendment is not applicable to the states, whether or not it secures an individual right. See Brewer v. State, 2006 WL 3345162, *2 (Ga. Nov. 20, 2006). The Court had indeed so held in the late 1800s, at a time when it was holding that most of the other Bill of Rights provisions don't apply to the states, even via the Bill of Rights. The leading case on this is United States v. Cruikshank, a 1875 case that held that neither the First nor the Second Amendments applied to the states; the Court reversed course on this in the 1920s and 1930s as to the First Amendment, but it hasn't revisited this question since 1900 as to the Second Amendment.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court Treats Second Amendment as Involving an Individual Right:
- "The Fact That Citizens Have a Constitutional Right To Bear Arms":
- "Citizens Have a Constitutional Right To Bear Arms Under Both the Federal and State Constitutions":