Where in the second amendment does it say the states have the right to regulate guns with restrictions?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
House passes concealed carry bill, tosses state rights and const. out window.
- Thread starter Inthemiddle
- Start date
Where in the second amendment does it say the states have the right to regulate guns with restrictions?
each State HAS THE RIGHT to govern themselves, no? We are a constitutional Republic no?It doesn't prohibit states from regulating licensing... though it could be argued that the Second amendment does that.
What it does it keep people from getting arrested if they are traveling in other states. It's completely ridiculous that if you want to defend yourself while traveling you need to read up on each states laws.
I had a client once, his only crime was that he was licensed in the wrong state. You seriously think we should be arresting people for exercising their second amendment right because the license isn't accepted across state lines?
I disagree with the Law, and I strongly support Gun rights....but the person carrying his gun over state lines SHOULD ALWAYS read up on the other state's gun laws and NOT be a Lazy rearend, on something soooo important and potentially dangerous or life saving!
States do not have a right to create laws that violate the U.S. Constitution. Any law that would restrict a person without due process to guns would violate the Second amendment right of a citizen.
Two Thumbs
Platinum Member
The Fed gov can't pass any law restricting the right to bear arms of any kind, any way or at any time.
Not for any reason.
It's unconstitutional
Not for any reason.
It's unconstitutional
1837 Georgia passes a law banning handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out.
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,756
- 2,220
When can you show us where the second amendment dictates how a person carries a firearm?
Of course the Second Amendment doesnt do that, but the reigning paradigm of Constitutional jurists thinks the states have the right to regulate such things in a way that is almost perpendicular to the spirit behind the Second Amendment.
I am OK with CCW, but would much prefer to carry the way God meant us to...honestly in the open for all the world to see.
Libtards are OK with gays having an orgy on public park walks but cant bear the sight of a law abiding citzen toting a six shooter.
Where in the second amendment does it say the states have the right to regulate guns with restrictions?
1. The Bill of Rights was origninally written to restrict the Federal government, not the states.
2. Since recent court decision have applied the Bill of Rights to states in regard to the Second Amendment (via expansive interpretation of the 14th amendment) the same courts rule that the federal government and the states can implement reasonable regulation of gun use as long as it does not in effect negate the right for citizens to own and protect themselves with guns.
I dont entirely agree with all that, as the FF's clearly intended for people to carry around the latest in self defense weaponry, but it is what it is.
Of course the Second Amendment doesnt do that, but the reigning paradigm of Constitutional jurists thinks the states have the right to regulate such things in a way that is almost perpendicular to the spirit behind the Second Amendment.
I am OK with CCW, but would much prefer to carry the way God meant us to...honestly in the open for all the world to see.
Libtards are OK with gays having an orgy on public park walks but cant bear the sight of a law abiding citzen toting a six shooter.
Where in the second amendment does it say the states have the right to regulate guns with restrictions?
1. The Bill of Rights was origninally written to restrict the Federal government, not the states.
2. Since recent court decision have applied the Bill of Rights to states in regard to the Second Amendment (via expansive interpretation of the 14th amendment) the same courts rule that the federal government and the states can implement reasonable regulation of gun use as long as it does not in effect negate the right for citizens to own and protect themselves with guns.
I dont entirely agree with all that, as the FF's clearly intended for people to carry around the latest in self defense weaponry, but it is what it is.
I dont entirely agree with all that, as the FF's clearly intended for people to carry around the latest in self defense weaponry, but it is what it is
Yes they did intend for the people the militia to have up to date weapons for militia use. to keep and maintain them. It was not the intent to have a standing army.
If you want to talk about courts decisions I can introduce you to one or two recent ruling that states the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of military grade and style.
Last edited:
The Bill of Rights was origninally written to restrict the Federal government, not the states.
Thats not comprehensively accurate, states and local governments werent off the hook with regard to their citizens rights.
Per Article IV, Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Privileges and Immunities was 18th Century-speak for rights, and here the Constitution clearly states that the application of rights may not very from state to state.
Since recent court decision have applied the Bill of Rights to states in regard to the Second Amendment (via expansive interpretation of the 14th amendment) the same courts rule that the federal government and the states can implement reasonable regulation of gun use as long as it does not in effect negate the right for citizens to own and protect themselves with guns.
The Courts interpretation of the 14th Amendment actually conformed to the Framers original intent rather than its expansion. And incorporation doctrine, applying the Bill of Rights to the states, has been around since 1897. See: Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago.
Neither Heller nor McDonald addressed specific restrictions on firearm ownership. In Heller the Court established an individual right to own a handgun and a right to self-defense. The Heller Court admonished lower courts to not construe the ruling as a prohibition on reasonable restrictions such as ownership of firearms by criminals or the mentally ill.
McDonald applied the Second Amendment to the states but only in the context of an outright ban, not addressing other forms of restriction. Indeed, most of the opinions addressed the issue as to whether the Second Amendment should be incorporated via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment or the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Court opted for the former.
But there is yet no understanding as to what constitutes a reasonable restriction, and the courts will be addressing that issue for decades.
Madisons original proposal;
A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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
Heller Case;
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
I found it interesting given the fact that Madison's original text clearly spells out what a well regualted Militia is and the Heller case found that the 2nd Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms unconnected with a militia. If that were the case, then the text "well regulated" would then only apply to militia's and not to individuals who own firearms. So given that fact then to support in that decision that any regulation has merit under the 2nd Amendment seems a bit of a stretch. All that said, it's very clear that the 2nd Amendment dreives it origins from English Law and given that the tradition of individuals owning Firearms for the defense of the nation at the time of it's establishment was well known as well as both Kings and Parliments regulating them. Given the views of both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists at the time it is not surprising that both views would eventually previal in that not only have a right to have firearms but that the Govt. can regulate them. On a side note, its also worth noting that a firearm if sold across state lines then becomes subject to the Commerce Clause and can be regulated as such.
Heller,
Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I find it interesting that the Court many of whom call themselves strict constructionists would not have read Madisons original text. Not that I am advocating any side in this decision, but it is quite clear that the 2nd Amendment is NOT a untouchable right in that gun ownership cannot be regulated.
A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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
Heller Case;
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
I found it interesting given the fact that Madison's original text clearly spells out what a well regualted Militia is and the Heller case found that the 2nd Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms unconnected with a militia. If that were the case, then the text "well regulated" would then only apply to militia's and not to individuals who own firearms. So given that fact then to support in that decision that any regulation has merit under the 2nd Amendment seems a bit of a stretch. All that said, it's very clear that the 2nd Amendment dreives it origins from English Law and given that the tradition of individuals owning Firearms for the defense of the nation at the time of it's establishment was well known as well as both Kings and Parliments regulating them. Given the views of both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists at the time it is not surprising that both views would eventually previal in that not only have a right to have firearms but that the Govt. can regulate them. On a side note, its also worth noting that a firearm if sold across state lines then becomes subject to the Commerce Clause and can be regulated as such.
Heller,
Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I find it interesting that the Court many of whom call themselves strict constructionists would not have read Madisons original text. Not that I am advocating any side in this decision, but it is quite clear that the 2nd Amendment is NOT a untouchable right in that gun ownership cannot be regulated.
Madisons original proposal;
A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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
Heller Case;
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
I found it interesting given the fact that Madison's original text clearly spells out what a well regualted Militia is and the Heller case found that the 2nd Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms unconnected with a militia. If that were the case, then the text "well regulated" would then only apply to militia's and not to individuals who own firearms. So given that fact then to support in that decision that any regulation has merit under the 2nd Amendment seems a bit of a stretch. All that said, it's very clear that the 2nd Amendment dreives it origins from English Law and given that the tradition of individuals owning Firearms for the defense of the nation at the time of it's establishment was well known as well as both Kings and Parliments regulating them. Given the views of both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists at the time it is not surprising that both views would eventually previal in that not only have a right to have firearms but that the Govt. can regulate them. On a side note, its also worth noting that a firearm if sold across state lines then becomes subject to the Commerce Clause and can be regulated as such.
Heller,
Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I find it interesting that the Court many of whom call themselves strict constructionists would not have read Madisons original text. Not that I am advocating any side in this decision, but it is quite clear that the 2nd Amendment is NOT a untouchable right in that gun ownership cannot be regulated.
Due process is the only limitation to the second amendment.
The Bill of Rights was origninally written to restrict the Federal government, not the states.
Thats not comprehensively accurate, states and local governments werent off the hook with regard to their citizens rights.
Per Article IV, Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Privileges and Immunities was 18th Century-speak for rights, and here the Constitution clearly states that the application of rights may not very from state to state.
Since recent court decision have applied the Bill of Rights to states in regard to the Second Amendment (via expansive interpretation of the 14th amendment) the same courts rule that the federal government and the states can implement reasonable regulation of gun use as long as it does not in effect negate the right for citizens to own and protect themselves with guns.
The Courts interpretation of the 14th Amendment actually conformed to the Framers original intent rather than its expansion. And incorporation doctrine, applying the Bill of Rights to the states, has been around since 1897. See: Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago.
Neither Heller nor McDonald addressed specific restrictions on firearm ownership. In Heller the Court established an individual right to own a handgun and a right to self-defense. The Heller Court admonished lower courts to not construe the ruling as a prohibition on reasonable restrictions such as ownership of firearms by criminals or the mentally ill.
McDonald applied the Second Amendment to the states but only in the context of an outright ban, not addressing other forms of restriction. Indeed, most of the opinions addressed the issue as to whether the Second Amendment should be incorporated via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment or the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Court opted for the former.
But there is yet no understanding as to what constitutes a reasonable restriction, and the courts will be addressing that issue for decades.
Thats not comprehensively accurate, states and local governments werent off the hook with regard to their citizens rights.
UH yes the Constitution is a limitation on what the federal government can and cannot do. The Bill Of rights is listed telling the federal government what they must protect.
Inthemiddle
Rookie
- Oct 4, 2011
- 6,354
- 675
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #131
Just like they do with marriage requirements
They do? There are alot of states that are refusing to recognize marriages from other states.
or drivers license requirements.
This is a decision made by each individual STATE.
So far you have not pointed to any substantial differences between the marriage license, drivers license or CC license.
Any substantial difference is irrelevant. The decision belongs to the states, not the federal government.
New York should not be able to revoke my certified license to CCW just because the corrput Mob-tied political whores there want to keep things safe for their shylocks and leg-breakers.
What are you talking about? Nobody is talking about stripping you of our permit. Maybe you just don't understand how states rights works. Your state only has authority to issue you a permit or license within that state. Your permit does not apply outside of your state, unless other states agree to extend the same.
It's no different than any other licensing. States all have their own laws that extend driving privileges to licensed drivers of other states. When it comes to medical, nursing, and law licenses, having a license in one state does not necessarily give you the right to practice medicine or nursing or law in another state. There are several states that legislated reciprocity for these things. But it's the states that have the right to make that decision, not the federal government.
Just like they do with marriage requirements
They do? There are alot of states that are refusing to recognize marriages from other states.
or drivers license requirements.
This is a decision made by each individual STATE.
So far you have not pointed to any substantial differences between the marriage license, drivers license or CC license.
Any substantial difference is irrelevant. The decision belongs to the states, not the federal government.
New York should not be able to revoke my certified license to CCW just because the corrput Mob-tied political whores there want to keep things safe for their shylocks and leg-breakers.
What are you talking about? Nobody is talking about stripping you of our permit. Maybe you just don't understand how states rights works. Your state only has authority to issue you a permit or license within that state. Your permit does not apply outside of your state, unless other states agree to extend the same.
It's no different than any other licensing. States all have their own laws that extend driving privileges to licensed drivers of other states. When it comes to medical, nursing, and law licenses, having a license in one state does not necessarily give you the right to practice medicine or nursing or law in another state. There are several states that legislated reciprocity for these things. But it's the states that have the right to make that decision, not the federal government.
OH shut the fuck up the second amendment is covered for all 50 states. The second amendment does not specify how a person can carry a firearm. It just says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Madisons original proposal;
A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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
Heller Case;
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
I found it interesting given the fact that Madison's original text clearly spells out what a well regualted Militia is and the Heller case found that the 2nd Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms unconnected with a militia. If that were the case, then the text "well regulated" would then only apply to militia's and not to individuals who own firearms. So given that fact then to support in that decision that any regulation has merit under the 2nd Amendment seems a bit of a stretch. All that said, it's very clear that the 2nd Amendment dreives it origins from English Law and given that the tradition of individuals owning Firearms for the defense of the nation at the time of it's establishment was well known as well as both Kings and Parliments regulating them. Given the views of both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists at the time it is not surprising that both views would eventually previal in that not only have a right to have firearms but that the Govt. can regulate them. On a side note, its also worth noting that a firearm if sold across state lines then becomes subject to the Commerce Clause and can be regulated as such.
Heller,
Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I find it interesting that the Court many of whom call themselves strict constructionists would not have read Madisons original text. Not that I am advocating any side in this decision, but it is quite clear that the 2nd Amendment is NOT a untouchable right in that gun ownership cannot be regulated.
Due process is the only limitation to the second amendment.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. If the 2nd Amendment were an unlimited right limited only by due process then everyone would have the right to carry any weapon they so choose regardless of type, so for example if I wanted to purchase a M47 Dragon Missile which has no other purpose other than to shoot down aircraft, or a USN CIWS 20MM M61 then according to some my right to keep and bear arms should allow me to do so. In fact there are several constitutional limits to a citizen gaining access to these types of weapons and any weapon that is sold across state lines. Some believe that the 2nd Amendment is an unlimited right if that were the case then you would not be required to go through a background check to purchase a firearm. Congress also has the power to limit scope and type of weapons sold and to whom they are sold under the Commerce Clause the same as they do with any manufactured product sold across state lines, while this does not render the end user from being able to purchase one it does regualte it. So no the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right, but it is more so a collective right and until Heller that standard had held since 1791 and even in Heller Justice Scalia wrote the following.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," he stated. "The Courts opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Madisons original proposal;
A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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
Heller Case;
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
I found it interesting given the fact that Madison's original text clearly spells out what a well regualted Militia is and the Heller case found that the 2nd Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms unconnected with a militia. If that were the case, then the text "well regulated" would then only apply to militia's and not to individuals who own firearms. So given that fact then to support in that decision that any regulation has merit under the 2nd Amendment seems a bit of a stretch. All that said, it's very clear that the 2nd Amendment dreives it origins from English Law and given that the tradition of individuals owning Firearms for the defense of the nation at the time of it's establishment was well known as well as both Kings and Parliments regulating them. Given the views of both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists at the time it is not surprising that both views would eventually previal in that not only have a right to have firearms but that the Govt. can regulate them. On a side note, its also worth noting that a firearm if sold across state lines then becomes subject to the Commerce Clause and can be regulated as such.
Heller,
Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I find it interesting that the Court many of whom call themselves strict constructionists would not have read Madisons original text. Not that I am advocating any side in this decision, but it is quite clear that the 2nd Amendment is NOT a untouchable right in that gun ownership cannot be regulated.
Due process is the only limitation to the second amendment.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. If the 2nd Amendment were an unlimited right limited only by due process then everyone would have the right to carry any weapon they so choose regardless of type, so for example if I wanted to purchase a M47 Dragon Missile which has no other purpose other than to shoot down aircraft, or a USN CIWS 20MM M61 then according to some my right to keep and bear arms should allow me to do so. In fact there are several constitutional limits to a citizen gaining access to these types of weapons and any weapon that is sold across state lines. Some believe that the 2nd Amendment is an unlimited right if that were the case then you would not be required to go through a background check to purchase a firearm. Congress also has the power to limit scope and type of weapons sold and to whom they are sold under the Commerce Clause the same as they do with any manufactured product sold across state lines, while this does not render the end user from being able to purchase one it does regualte it. So no the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right, but it is more so a collective right and until Heller that standard had held since 1791 and even in Heller Justice Scalia wrote the following.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," he stated. "The Courts opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Show me please if you will where it says in the second amendment there are restriction to gun ownership and direction on how a person can carry a firearm?
As I said the only restriction is due process.
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
Well Regulated Definition;
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order
James Madison Aug 24th 1789
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person
further;
Montana's staunchly pro-Second Amendment Governor, Democrat Brian Schweitzer, has signed Montana HB 246, the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The bill declares that a firearm which is manufactured in Montana, and never leaves the State of Montana, "is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce."
If the power to regulate even as stated in the 2nd Amendment is not a power given to congress, as well as a power given to it under many other parts of the constitution then the 2nd Amendment would be an unlimited right which it clearly is not and has been pointed out not just by me but also by many many Justices of the Supreme Court and even going back to the original author of the constitution.
14th Amend. Sec. 1
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So if your contention were to hold true then the courts would be completely overloaded with cases of people seeking redress because they were denied due process because their ability to purchase a M2 at the local Wal Mart was taken away.
Well Regulated Definition;
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order
James Madison Aug 24th 1789
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person
further;
Montana's staunchly pro-Second Amendment Governor, Democrat Brian Schweitzer, has signed Montana HB 246, the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The bill declares that a firearm which is manufactured in Montana, and never leaves the State of Montana, "is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce."
If the power to regulate even as stated in the 2nd Amendment is not a power given to congress, as well as a power given to it under many other parts of the constitution then the 2nd Amendment would be an unlimited right which it clearly is not and has been pointed out not just by me but also by many many Justices of the Supreme Court and even going back to the original author of the constitution.
14th Amend. Sec. 1
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So if your contention were to hold true then the courts would be completely overloaded with cases of people seeking redress because they were denied due process because their ability to purchase a M2 at the local Wal Mart was taken away.
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
Well Regulated Definition;
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order
James Madison Aug 24th 1789
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person
further;
Montana's staunchly pro-Second Amendment Governor, Democrat Brian Schweitzer, has signed Montana HB 246, the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The bill declares that a firearm which is manufactured in Montana, and never leaves the State of Montana, "is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce."
If the power to regulate even as stated in the 2nd Amendment is not a power given to congress, as well as a power given to it under many other parts of the constitution then the 2nd Amendment would be an unlimited right which it clearly is not and has been pointed out not just by me but also by many many Justices of the Supreme Court and even going back to the original author of the constitution.
14th Amend. Sec. 1
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So if your contention were to hold true then the courts would be completely overloaded with cases of people seeking redress because they were denied due process because their ability to purchase a M2 at the local Wal Mart was taken away.
Well Regulated Definition;
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order
If you are going to try and define the meaning of a word how about use the definition from the period of time the word was used.
Well Regulated in the 18th century did not mean regulated by the government.
It meant as expected in working order.
the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"
They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Lonestar_logic
Republic of Texas
- May 13, 2009
- 24,539
- 2,233
- 205
House votes to expand concealed gun law CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Now that I have your attention, I'm not 100% sure it would be unconstitutional, but my first impression is that this would violate the state's rights to regulate licensing on its own. At the very least, it certainly is ideologically opposed to respecting state rights. I'm very perplexed by this. I support individual rights to carry a gun. But I think that it's over stepping for the federal government onto the states.
Perhaps you should read the bill before you comment on it.
This bill would simply allow individuals with a permit to carry a concealed gun in one state to bring that weapon into any other state that also has a concealed firearm law.
House votes to expand concealed gun law – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Now that I have your attention, I'm not 100% sure it would be unconstitutional, but my first impression is that this would violate the state's rights to regulate licensing on its own. At the very least, it certainly is ideologically opposed to respecting state rights. I'm very perplexed by this. I support individual rights to carry a gun. But I think that it's over stepping for the federal government onto the states.
Perhaps you should read the bill before you comment on it.
This bill would simply allow individuals with a permit to carry a concealed gun in one state to bring that weapon into any other state that also has a concealed firearm law.
If thats the case then why are drivers licenses from one state accepted in every state? Even though they have different traffic laws.
Last edited:
One more reason the Boehner House will go down as the most do-nothing and divisive Congress in the history of the United States. As pointed out above, where IS the jobs bill?
Harry Reid killed it. Have you been on a desert island?
Whilte I respect your opinion and appreciate your answer, I'm aware of the meaning of " well regulated" as it applies to the second Amendment, however as it applies to the the Constitution as a whole " well regulated" who is that? the " people" and who represents the people ? Congress. Thus the reason why I highlighted the word people.
Article I Sec. 8
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It's pretty clear since the inception of this nation that the 2nd Amendment even during it's debate was not an unlimited right, and further Congress does have the power to regulate weapons. While it's true that citizens have the right to own a gun and I do not disagree with that, that right is not an unlimited right and for over 200 plus years that right has been limited and controlled by Congress and the States. My posting was in response to your question and it was to show that the 2nd Amendment just like every other "right" within the bill of rights is also not unlimted and can be regulated by the "people".
Article I Sec. 8
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It's pretty clear since the inception of this nation that the 2nd Amendment even during it's debate was not an unlimited right, and further Congress does have the power to regulate weapons. While it's true that citizens have the right to own a gun and I do not disagree with that, that right is not an unlimited right and for over 200 plus years that right has been limited and controlled by Congress and the States. My posting was in response to your question and it was to show that the 2nd Amendment just like every other "right" within the bill of rights is also not unlimted and can be regulated by the "people".
Similar threads
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 420
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 9K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 191
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 210
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8087
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-