Not quite. The Second Amendment itself clearly addresses the issues of freedom and the protection of same by the RIGHT to bear arms by the citizenry as part of a militia, if need be. So the courts have said.
It is important to remember that your individual RKBA is protected by your state, not the federal government (which is why gun laws vary from state to state).
The Second Amendment itself clearly addresses the issues of freedom and the protection of same by the RIGHT to bear arms by the citizenry as part of a militia, if need be. So the courts have said.
It is important to remember that your individual RKBA is protected by your state, not the federal government (which is why gun laws vary from state to state).
------
Yes, that INTERPRETATION has perverted the original intent into the legal status of today. I am quite familiar with state-level control. Again, all to the convenience of those that would RESTRICT the ownership of firearms by legal, law-abiding citizens. And we are all too familiar with that effort.
The Second Amendment itself clearly addresses the issues of freedom and the protection of same by the RIGHT to bear arms by the citizenry as part of a militia, if need be. So the courts have said.
You & the courts claim our RKBAs is not an individual right. -- The constitution clearly says it is a right of the people, not to be infringed. -- You've been trumped, and been shown to be an anti-constitutional propagandist.
It is important to remember that your individual RKBA is protected by your state, not the federal government (which is why gun laws vary from state to state).
All officials in the USA, fed/state/local, -- are sworn to enforce, protect & defend the Constitution [which includes the 2nd] as the supreme Law of the Land.
Again, you've been trumped, and been shown to be an anti-constitutional dupe. -- Give it up paulsen.