How do you limit a right that shall not be infringed?
Rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are acknowledged to be preexisting.
Appalled by the District Court ruling, the Washington Post editorialized that it will "give the true American meaning to the Second Amendment" that, if applied nationally, could imperil "every unconstitutional gun control law on the books."
I sure am glad we have the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia there to explain plain english for us. I won't be completely satisfied, however, until the Supreme Court explains to everybody that the word 'bear' means carry, not own. Could you imagine Thomas Jefferson paying money to the government for the right to conceal his weapon on his person?
Of course the 2nd Amendment is about individual citizens. Why would they have needed to amend the Constitution to allow our military to bear arms?
ping
In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right—“the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”—indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
Yes it does. If you don't understand the 2nd Amendment you don't understand America. Some understand the 2nd A. and want it gone. That tells you exactly what they're about.
As a strong second Amendment supporter, I would agree with your last sentence, however where does the limit fall, with the extreme being tactical nuclear weapons or 155mm Howitzers? Are citizens to be allowed these as well? I don't have an answer, and am actually asking the question. I think that "small arms" as in rifles and handguns, even machine guns should be our right to own. Should we have NO limits? That might require a level of perfection in personal responsibility humans are not capable of.
Easy. The same way Congress passes legislation restricting speech when the first amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make NO law ..."
Sounds good to me.
"right of the people and "shall not be infringed" is pretty strong language, with very little wiggle room for any sort of "gun control" that applies to otherwise law abiding peaceable citizens.
All it would take is for the Supreme Court to hear and uphold this decision, and federal gun control, other than that which affects convicted felons and such, is gone, including the National Firearms Act. One more ruling, on a state level gun control law, declaring that the second is "incorporated" against state and local infringement as well (being fundamental to ordered liberty), and poof, state and local gun control is also gone the way of the passenger pigeon.
Of course all that should have occurred in beginning in 1939 or so.
There, fixed it.
I would argue only when an individual abuses that right.
Meantime I am confused as to why the NRA opposed this suit?
Especially since there is nothing written officially, publically or privately that addresses such a distinction between the two alleged meanings of "the people."
The creation of the BoRs was the subject of endless debate amongst hundreds if not thousands of men at the time. Reams of press were devoted to this debate. The idea that the phrase "the people" had two distinct meanings and no one ever even made a passing reference to that fact is ludicrous.
"Yes, the Second Amendment Guarantees an Individual Right to Bear Arms"
Not in New York state.
True. But, as in the example of crying "fire" in a crowded theater, no restriction is acceptable before some harm has actually been committed.
But here is the catch how are you going to get your guns home. You wait they will find that loophole.
I converted the PDF to HTML to make for easier reading HERE.
Bookmarked.