Replies

"'We' are people who demand that the law of the land, the 2nd Amendment, be supported by ALL officials, fed/state/local. -- As per their oaths of office."

The Supreme Court says otherwise:

"...The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called...internal police." -- U.S. v. Cruikshank

I don't agree but that's the way it is. The State can infringe on the rights of the people in regard to the 2nd Amendment.

Why? Because the Supreme Court said so.

'We' are people who demand that the law of the land, the 2nd Amendment, be supported by ALL officials, fed/state/local. -- As per their oaths of office.

The USSC is only 'free' to tell other branches & levels of government to comply with our Constitution as written. - They are not free to change its meaning.

The Supreme Court says otherwise:

The court 'says' a LOT of things. Their opinions are not always correct.

"...The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. -- "

No rights are "granted" by governments. Our rights are self evident, inalienable, & shall not be infringed.

Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

"As has been seen"? Who 'saw' that? Nine justices?

This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called...internal police." -- U.S. v. Cruikshank

And we see the result of such misguided court decisions. State & local governments use democratic 'majority rule' to overturn the Constitutional rule of law.

I don't agree but that's the way it is. The State can infringe on the rights of the people in regard to the 2nd Amendment.
Why? Because the Supreme Court said so.

Why put blame on the USSC? -- Most agree because they want States to have the power to control other people and admit it. No disgrace to support majority rule.. Many here do..

means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

WRONG! The other amendments say "Congress shall make no law..." The 2nd says "The right...SHALL NƠT BE INFRINGED." That makes it an absolute.It is not directed at Congress. Shall not be infringed means everybody.