a reply to: SM2
and infringe in this case is attached to keep and bear arms. People can buy guns... The government can say to manufacturers no, you cant sell this
type of weapon because of this or that. You are still allowed to buy a different gun.
The violation occurs when the government puts a system in place that prevents a person from getting a gun - any gun - at all (no ability to own one).
If we look at scotus rulings from 2008 (DC vs. Heller) and 2010 (McDonald vs. City of Chicago), where scotus ruled the 2nd amendment applies to the
individual (as well as the states by the 14th amendment), and look at the parts of the law scotus said was unconstitutional -
Chicago - ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns.
District of Columbia - The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that
handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion
of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." Prior
to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to
Clarifying what infringement means with regards to the 2nd amendment.
Clarifying what an "arms" is as well.
Just like High crimes and Misdemeanors in the Constitution - What constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor? Congress is solely responsible for
defining those 2 terms for impeachment and is not based on current laws.
The rulings clarified that the 2nd amendment is applied to the states as well as federal enclaves. You guys are aware the US Constitution originally
only applied to federal officials right? It took the 14th amendment as a base to apply parts of the Constitution to the states. Even today not all
amendments have been applied to the states, namely the 7th amendment and not all amendments apply to the individual, namely the 4th amendment.
So if we were to use the logic of some, going with a plain text reading of the Constitution, the 2nd amendment would have only applied to the
federal government and not the states / individuals of those states (actually the federal constitution would not apply to the states since they are
separate sovereigns and have their own Constitutions). Considering the Constitution references / sets limits for only the federal government and
anything not reserved to the feds, or prohibited to the states, is a state issue.
So before we go down the road of language and the courts maybe some people should learn the history before complaining about Supreme Court rulings
because with out their ruling we would not be able to purchase / own / bear arms as state citizens if states had prohibited them. Further there would
have been no avenue of recourse at the state level either.
edit on 29-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)