oldsoul
Gold Member
I disagree on whether states/localities can impose restrictions the Feds cannot. If we allow for that with the second, what stops your state from imposing restrictions on any of the other rights enshrined in the COTUS. Ultimately the COTUS is the supreme law of the land, thus no law may violate it, whether that law be federal, state or local. Hence, "Jim Crow" laws where struck down, along with many others, such as in the Heller case.While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)
I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.
Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.
Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.
Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.
The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.
And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.
In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.
Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.
I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.
But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.