Secondly, Scalia and others have already stated that 'rights' are not unlimited. DC vs. Heller.
Logically, an unlimited right would entail an unlimited responsibility since rights are always connected to responsibilities. I am satisfied that the second amendment does not allow me to buy a tactical nuke or a battle ship or some other weapon of mass destruction. I do think I should be able to be as well armed as the typical infantryman but I’m ahead of the courts on that one.
Ah, gov’t deciding what the chains placed upon THEM ‘truly’ mean(t).
It is WE THE PEOPLE whom are final arbiters. We allowed them certain powers, WE can take it all back
Rights are not unlimited, by definition. Every right defines a relationship between two or more people. My right to speak is limited by the rights of others, for example, to be left alone on their private property. So if I’m doing door to door political speech or religious persuasion, my right to speak or exercise my faith does not empower me to trespass uninvited on another’s property, or to use a megaphone at 3am just below someone’s bedroom window.
So there are some restrictions, and they can be necessary to the preservation of rights for every party in a relationship. Scalia’s reference to this principle for guns is not surprising in a constitutional setting, even for a fundamental right.
However, I think the gun grabbers are reading way too much into it. It’s clear from Heller that there is some definable central purpose of the right that would allow some regulation that does not infringe on the right itself. For example, in free speech law we have time, place, and manner limitations. Yes, they can and do go too far at times. But more often there is a balance to them that tries to preserve everyone’s rights as well as possible. But at the end of the day we do not prohibit speech based on viewpoint, etc.
The analogy isn’t perfect, though, and that in part is what the gun grabbers are tripping over. The right to speak freely is important, but arguably the right of the innocent to physical preservation must be honored or none of the others can be honored. Armed self defense comes in at that deeper bedrock, and no regulations can create a de facto ban on that basic capability without denying the right itself.
That’s why I believe the Heller court would throw down, for example, the so-called high capacity magazine ban. It’s not something that can be regulated without interfering materially with one’s ability to stay alive in a variety of conflict scenarios. It is further protected by the common use principle of Heller. If the Heller court can remain in tact for a few more years, I think it will solidify 2A jurisprudence favorably to the preservation of the right.