Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tpaine

Why didn't they just write the 2d as the first; congress shall make no law restricting the ownership of firearms. That would leave the states free to restrict at will.
But they didn't.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed, is pretty clear as to who it pertains to and what shall not be done by any governing body.


921 posted on 03/10/2007 8:22:39 PM PST by smoketree (the insanity, the lunacy these days.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies ]


To: smoketree
It's pretty damn clear. "The people have this Right that shall not be infringed". Full stop. No limits on who may do the infringing. The FedGov can't. The States can't. "Home Rule" cities can't. If you are a citizen of the US, you have this Right.

It's a declaratory statement. As it notes in the Preamble. Every gun law out there not directly related to malicious harm done with a firearm is on its face unConstitutional and should be stricken from the books.

924 posted on 03/10/2007 8:29:28 PM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies ]

To: smoketree
More familiar BS from 'Steve Mount' touted as a constitutional authority:

"-- With the historical context set above, a look at the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are appropriate.
These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias.

Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states.
This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so. --"

Smoketree:
Why didn't they just write the 2d as the first; congress shall make no law restricting the ownership of firearms. That would leave the states free to restrict at will.
But they didn't.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed, is pretty clear as to who it pertains to and what shall not be done by any governing body.


Incredible isn't it, -- that anyone would tout the man above as an expert, -- a man that thinks a homeowners association can prohibit firearms.

928 posted on 03/10/2007 8:35:07 PM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies ]

To: smoketree
Why didn't they just write the 2d as the first; congress shall make no law restricting the ownership of firearms. That would leave the states free to restrict at will. But they didn't

I've never thought of it that way, but my first impression is that it makes sense. Too bad that most judges and liberals in general are so prejudiced against the RKBA that they would never admit to seeing it that way if their lives depended on it.

946 posted on 03/10/2007 9:26:34 PM PST by epow (Conservative Republicans win national elections, RINOs lose national elections, history proves it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson