The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[KissMy]

The phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment referred to well balanced people & things functioning properly as expected in proper working order. It was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

This means no guns for criminals, terrorist, mentally defectives, those who rage out of control.

 

[Abatis]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?


The founders never thought right wingers would be so fucking stupid they would give weapons to criminals. It's just assumed an idiotic thing to do.

Bobby Jindal made guns for felons a "fundamental right".

Louisiana law floods courts with pro-gun cases

In Louisiana, one of the most notable cases using the amendment involves Glen Draughter, 20, of New Orleans, a felon convicted of simple burglary who was later caught riding in a car with a handgun in the backseat and an AK-47 with a 30-round clip in the trunk – a violation of state law. His lawyers brought the case to court, arguing that the new amendment gives him the same "fundamental right" to bear arms as anyone else, and his gun possession case should be dropped.
On March 21, an Orleans Parish judge ruled that, under the new amendment, the statute forbidding felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional.

Shall we call you Rumpelstiltskin? While you have been asleep some developments have occurred and your outrage back in 2013 that apparently rendered you unconscious was a histrionic overreaction.

And just to correct an outright lie that you open with, Jindal didn't "make guns a fundamental right". It wasn't an executive action that did that, the citizens of Louisiana did --by a 73 percent majority-- with a duly ratified amendment to the state constitution.

To put your terrified mind to rest, no felons got any guns; the application of the new amendment worked it's way through the courts, Draughter's case was decided in July of 2014 and the state law barring felons from owning guns was sustained under the "strict scrutiny" standard the amendment demanded:
.

"The Louisiana Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a state law that forbids felons from possessing firearms, ruling that lawmakers did not intend to invalidate the state’s weapons laws when they proposed a constitutional amendment declaring gun ownership a fundamental right.

Justice Jeff Hughes wrote in a unanimous opinion that the state’s ban on the possession of firearms by convicted felons “is not affected” by the constitutional language approved by voters in 2012.

The justices also found that the law, R.S. 14:95.1, withstood a legal test known as “strict scrutiny,” the highest level of judicial review, which became necessary after voters in 2012 overwhelmingly approved constitutional language that gave Louisiana the strongest gun-rights laws in the nation."

La. Supreme Court upholds gun restrictions​

 

[SwimExpert]

The phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment referred to well balanced people & things functioning properly as expected in proper working order. It was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

This means no guns for criminals, terrorist, mentally defectives, those who rage out of control.

You make as much sense as the lefty loons who say that "well regulated militia" means no guns for the common man.

 

[KissMy]

The phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment referred to well balanced people & things functioning properly as expected in proper working order. It was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

This means no guns for criminals, terrorist, mentally defectives, those who rage out of control.

You make as much sense as the lefty loons who say that "well regulated militia" means no guns for the common man.

No - The common man is not a mentally defective violent criminal terrorist. Over 90%+ of US citizens should be allowed to CCW.

Reagan Republicans iron fisted law & order stripped more gun rights than any lefty ever did.

 

[FA_Q2]

The phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment referred to well balanced people & things functioning properly as expected in proper working order. It was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

This means no guns for criminals, terrorist, mentally defectives, those who rage out of control.

You make as much sense as the lefty loons who say that "well regulated militia" means no guns for the common man.

Because....

 

[Little-Acorn]

That's a new category of pathetic, trying to make an argument like that. Nothing in the second amendment strips Congress of the power to regulate commerce.

As usual, when a liberal can't refute, he denies. And calls a few names for good measure.

In fact, that's one of the things the 2nd amendment clearly did.

The Constitution gave the Fed govt the power to regulate commerce.

Then a few years later, the 2nd amendment was added, saying that govt could not take away or restrict people's right to carry guns and other such weapons, since an armed and capable populace was necessary for security and freedom.

Once that amendment was passed, the govt could legally do NOTHING to restrict guns. Including regulate them for any reason, "interstate commerce" or anything else.

Read 'em and weep. As the OP says, the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd, deliberately left out ANY exceptions... for good reason.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

The Supreme Court determines what the Second Amendment 'says,' not private citizens predicated on their subjective, wrongheaded opinions.

It is an inalienable, but not absolute, right safeguarding the protected liberty of the people to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense.

As with other rights, it is a right subject to reasonable restrictions by government, where the courts rule as to the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

This fact of Constitutional law is fundamental, settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says: "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

The Supreme Court determines what the Second Amendment 'says,' not private citizens predicated on their subjective, wrongheaded opinions.

TRANSLATION: Since I don't like what the 2nd amendment clearly says, I'll lie about it and pretend that no one can understand a sentence in the Constitution, and we have to have faraway people with mysterious powers read it to us. Hopefully I'll fool somebody somewhere into believing me instead of what the Constitution actually says.

 

[SwimExpert]

The phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment referred to well balanced people & things functioning properly as expected in proper working order. It was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

This means no guns for criminals, terrorist, mentally defectives, those who rage out of control.

You make as much sense as the lefty loons who say that "well regulated militia" means no guns for the common man.

Because....

Because everything he's saying is based on a ridiculous attempt to abandon the meaning of the whole and instead twist individual words to suit his absurd excuse for an explanation, at the expense of common sense. Just like when liberals try to "well regulated militia means only the military can have guns." He is, in fact, hanging up on two of the three same words, while trying to invent his new meaning.

 

[KissMy]

Republicans take your civil rights & your guns!

 

[FA_Q2]

The phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment referred to well balanced people & things functioning properly as expected in proper working order. It was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

This means no guns for criminals, terrorist, mentally defectives, those who rage out of control.

You make as much sense as the lefty loons who say that "well regulated militia" means no guns for the common man.

Because....

Because everything he's saying is based on a ridiculous attempt to abandon the meaning of the whole and instead twist individual words to suit his absurd excuse for an explanation, at the expense of common sense. Just like when liberals try to "well regulated militia means only the military can have guns." He is, in fact, hanging up on two of the three same words, while trying to invent his new meaning.

Is this perhaps based off of the posts he makes in this thread rather than that single post then because I don't see it in that single post where he is fairly close to what 'well regulated' meant in the context of the second amendment.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The first half of the 2nd amendment is merely an explanation for WHY the right of the people shall not be infringed. So its content doesn't actually change the law's command, which is that govt cannot take away or restrict the right.

Suppose the 2nd amendment read instead: "The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And then, nearly 200 years after it was enacted, astronauts finally land on the moon and prove once and for all that it is not made of green cheese.

Would that mean that now it's OK for the govt to infringe on the right?

No.

Similarly, it doesn't matter if the militia is well-regulated, or what "well-regulated" even means. No matter what conclusions anybody comes to about the first half of the amendment, the fact still remains that govt is forbidden to take away or restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And the liberals know it. The are just hoping nobody else does, so they can put over their fake "interpretation" of the 2nd.

 

[RandallFlagg]

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

The Supreme Court determines what the Second Amendment 'says,' not private citizens predicated on their subjective, wrongheaded opinions.

It is an inalienable, but not absolute, right safeguarding the protected liberty of the people to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense.

As with other rights, it is a right subject to reasonable restrictions by government, where the courts rule as to the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

This fact of Constitutional law is fundamental, settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

Again - you show your bias. It is ABSOLUTELY an "absolute" right. Get your act together hypocrite.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Supreme Court determines what the Second Amendment 'says,' not private citizens predicated on their subjective, wrongheaded opinions.

The Supreme Court has no such authority.

It is the authors of the Second Amendment itself who determined what it says. And when the process of ratifying it was complete, that was it. It says what it says, as it was ratified, and when the courts try to tell us that it says anything differently, then all they are accomplishing is to demonstrate how corrupt they have become.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The liberals are once again trying to pretend they haven't heard the arguments proving that "reasonable regulations" of guns are forbidden by the 2nd amendment. So it's time to re-assert them.

--------------------------------------------

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?


The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The liberals are once again trying to pretend they haven't heard the arguments proving that "reasonable regulations" of guns are forbidden by the 2nd amendment. So it's time to re-assert them.

--------------------------------------------

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?


The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

Herein is Scalia's "better guess"

" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendmentor state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). 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.26"

 

[M14 Shooter]

Herein is Scalia's "better guess"
" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

Nothing in this paragraphs means what you think it means.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Herein is Scalia's "better guess"
" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

Nothing in this paragraphs means what you think it means.

Oh please tell us what it really means.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law'.'

And again:

The right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense is not in the Second Amendment – but both rights exist nonetheless, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment, where that case law acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm and a right to self-defense.

That case law also acknowledges the fact that no right is ‘absolute,’ as is the case with the Second Amendment right, which is subject to reasonable restrictions by government consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, such as prohibiting felons, undocumented immigrants, and the mentally ill from possessing firearms.

Consequently, “but that’s not in the Second Amendment” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’