robertpaulsen opines:
Then again, the Founders envisioned each state setting up their own rules.
Rules that complied with the 2nd, - no infringements.
If the majority of the people of Massachusetts don't want guns, as wrongheaded as that might be, who are we to deny them their wish?
'We' are people who demand that the law of the land, the 2nd Amendment, be supported by ALL officials, fed/state/local. -- As per their oaths of office.
The great thing about federalism is that there is another state to move to with more favorable laws.
Those who choose to ignore our Constitution are also free to leave the USA.
At least until some on this board get their wish and have the USSC tell us exactly what the second amendment means.
The USSC is only 'free' to tell other branches & levels of government to comply with our Constitution as written. - They are not free to change its meaning.
"'We' are people who demand that the law of the land, the 2nd Amendment, be supported by ALL officials, fed/state/local. -- As per their oaths of office."
The Supreme Court says otherwise:
"...The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called...internal police." -- U.S. v. Cruikshank
I don't agree but that's the way it is. The State can infringe on the rights of the people in regard to the 2nd Amendment.
Why? Because the Supreme Court said so.