Not all rights are of the “inalienable” type. Those are specifed as “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”. From these un/inalienable rights comes the mechanisms to exercise those principles of society and government, namely, to keep and bear arms (obvious to anyone who hold that one’s life is the most important aspect of all), and speech/press (libnerty is at issue here- w/o a voice, one cannot obtain and keep liberty, apply the former comment also,arms), and right to security in one’s person, papers and home. Pursuit of life liberty and happiness is not unlimited- ones pursuit of such (property, money, things etc) are all limited by society and law so as not to intrude/usurp the same from others).
The necessary and proper clasue of the constittuion is the basis for regulating all of the essentail rights- would anyone argue (seriously anyway) the fact taht arms are prohibited in court (except by court officers)?
We need to read, reread and study the DOI, the US COnstitution and BOR/Amendment and as importantly Locke’s “Second treatise on government” and Adam Smiths “Wealth of Nations” (not just about economics) along with a few other founders references for the ideals and intentions of the formation of this nation and our government.
Certainly incompetents and unable persons should not be armed at will, nor allowed to operate vehciles/fly airplanes etc. We owe it to ourselves and others to work in “society” and where we cannot, laws must be employed.
I will be glad to agree that felons once released and off parole/probation etc should be re-enfranchised, or never let go if they are not capable of walking civilly among us.
This said, be it known I exercise al lof my rights as often as I can w/o violating society or law, but life, liberty and pursuit of happiness trump, as they should.
Best;
arms were allowed in courts until about the 1920’s...
so yes, I would argue that I am allowed to carry firearms into a courthouse, or a schoolhouse, or into and onto any federal, state, county or municipal building.
The only exception would be on private property and businesses, properly posted.
I will also argue that the second amendment is not there to allow hunting. It is there so that the citizenry can be fully prepared to throw off a government gone rogue, therefore any weapon the military possesses, private citizens should be able to possess. Without exceptions, and if you could afford it.
did you know, that during the revolutionary war, the fledgling United States leased warships and cannon from private owners?
No restrictions....