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?
The anti-infringment clause is unnecessary, in that a right cannot be infringed with or without it. It is the job of the court to stop the infringement of any right (not to be confused with an imaginary ‘entitlement’) of any kind wherever it may be occuring.
The mistake that is being perpetuated is the reliance on the second ammendment, which was never anything more than a notice of an existing condition. (not that I’m not glad that that notice was included)
The Declaration of Independance, which is the instrument that permitted both the state, and the federal governments to be formed, is the defining power. This is what the war of independance was fought for, and the foundation of both the secular and cultural elements of the nation.