The second is for all to observe. - The constitution did not create the right recognized in the second; it merely stated that it existed, and an existing right is not to be infringed.
That POV came not from the Federal government, but from the states, for it was the states, and thereby the people, that were the authors of the constitution.
The right recognized is not dependent upon the constitution for its existance, and stands above all government, as instituted by the sovereign of the universe; thus the constitution and the ammendments are irrelevant to the question. The right stands on its own merit by the testimony of the several states.
This is not about where rights originate, but in who enforces that right.
The power to enforce is sufficient power to violate.
The right being pre-existantis acknowledged but the restriction on infringement points at the federal government only. For it to apply to the states assumes that the prohibition against infringment is not needed to be addressed in state constitutions. now, many states have a like amendment or expressed point in their constitutions. This in some states before the US Constitution ratification in 1789 and many after.
So which is it? The constitution recognizes the right and expressly forbids infringment...but as I see its recognition fo the right is universal but the infringment clause is against the Federal Government....It is what the states feared.
The problem with this is that todays scum liberals would LOVE to use this methodology to say that NY, for instance, can legislate as it sees fit on guns. It does run into the declaration of the right, but clearly New York’s infringment has been ongoing for many years as they very much restrict guns.
Should the Supreme Court come back and overturn the law they are looking at on the basis of universl application then we subject all state constitutions to its verdict.
Your thoughts?