Suppose a state bans possession of all semiautomatic firearms, and then all pump action firearms, and then all bolt-action firearms, and then all multiple-barrel firearms, and then all revolvers, and then all bolt-action firearms, and then all firearms capable of firing one or more shots, such that then all firearms are completely prohibited.
At what point in this progression would you say the Second Amendment has been violated?
Or would it never be violated, because only “lawful” firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, which just happens to be an empty set in this hypothetical case?
At what point in this progression would you say the Second Amendment has been violated?
The 2nd Amendment protected the pre-existing Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The pre-existing RKBA was self-stated as an individual right for the purpose of self-defense, for the possession of firearms lawful to possess, under due restrictions.
Suppose a state bans possession of all semiautomatic firearms....
Heller, Syllabus at 2-3:
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
The Engish Bill of Rights 1689: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)
5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
It has never meant a right to carry any and all weapons for any purpose. It does not mean that today.
That is the right the Constitution says shall not be infringed. The given reason was that an armed population, trained in the use of arms, was needed for when the militia might be called. A large standing army was not contemplated.
District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Heller at 620:
We described the right protected by the Second Amendment as “ ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose’ ”
Heller at 626:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).
Heller at 592:
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
McDonald, Syllabus at 2:
(b) The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government, not to the States, see, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 247, but the constitutional Amendments adopted in the Civil War’s aftermath fundamentally altered the federal system.