Supreme Ct Says All Individuals Have Right To Bear Arms

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment


Leftists hate The Bill of Rights



A flawed document.



HRC2.jpg
 
How about the right to arm bears?
And the point of going over already ruled upon law?
You afraid somebody's coming for your guns.....again?
 
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment
The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal. There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.
 
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment
The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal. There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.
No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.
 
There are NO caveats in the 2nd amendment- it doesn't require interpretation- unless simple English isn't comprehended- the declarative is; shall NOT be infringed- period.
That's your interpretation, but judges and lawyers don't agree. The court's job is to interpret the law and they do it all the time.
 

Forum List

Back
Top