I would like to address the simple statement, "shall not be infringed" with regard to keeping and bearing arms, in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. We must consider the original meaning of the authors of this statement, in their own mindset and time frame. As we all know, words
can/tend to change their meanings over time. One recent example is the word "sick", which used to mean you were "crazy", as in, "That guy must be
one sick person to do that", now is being used as a term for "cool", or "out-of-the box", or "wildly awesome", as in "That guy is so awesome,
he's sick", or "That rod is sick!"
So, to alleviate concerns that the 2nd Amendment wording is old and misunderstood today, here are actual definitions of the key words in the 2nd
Amendment in regard to "shall not be infringed". These definitions were copied from a period dictionary of the 18th Century, at the time of the
writing of those words, 1780. So, if we consider with the key word "INFRINGE", we can determine the original meaning of the authors of the 2nd
Amendment, in their own words and understandings of that era.
In 1780, the use of the word "infringe" as a verb, means:
To INFRINGE ... v.a. To violate, to break laws or contracts; to destroy, to hinder.
Assuming some ambiguity in "hinder", we look that up to find:
To HINDER ... v.a. To obstruct, to stop, to impede.
Assuming some ambiguity in "obstruct", we look that up to find:
To OBSTRUCT ... v.a. To hinder, to be in the way of, to block up, to bar; to oppose, to retard.
Assuming some ambiguity in "impede", we look that up to find:
To IMPEDE ... v.a. To hinder, to let, to obstruct.
So, we can clearly infer that their understanding of the word INFRINGE, in 1780, is:
a. Not so different than it is now in the 21st century
b. Is another way of saying to impede, or to "be in the way of", oppose, or retard.
So, interpreting "shall not be infringed" is the same as saying that putting obstructions in the way or to slow down the process, or make it near
impossible to obtain is 100% against the original meaning of this part of the 2nd Amendment. That said, ANY legislation that slows down or effectively
prevents a United States citizen from keeping and bearing arms is in violation this amendment.
Therefore, not only are these new gun control legislation changes are in violation of our constitutional rights, but existing laws are also in
violation, regardless of type of firearm. And, these rights cannot be legislated against according to this same Constitution. So, new laws cannot
change the meaning, or override ANY part of this statement.
Source Link to PDF: "A General Dictionary of the English
Language - Thomas Sheridan, pub. 1780"