The Supreme Court Rules The 2nd Amendment Does NOT Grant An Unlimited Right To Own Guns

[martybegan]

Have you read the 2008 Supreme Court decision that gives all Americans the right to own guns? Probably not. I hadn’t, until the other day, when I was stunned to find that the decision is hardly the blanket protection for gun ownership that the National Rifle Association and adamant gun rights people claim. Nor is it the sweeping defeat that those who want gun control lament. Reading it, in fact, offers some real hope that a reasonable middle ground may be possible as America gropes in these polarized times for a solution to gun violence that protects the rights of gun owners and public safety.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”


“But, but, but …,” your Facebook friend might counter, “the text of the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms ‘shall not be infringed.’ Shall Not. Be. Infringed.” Said friend may even say it in all capital letters.

Funny story. The framers used the word “shall” a lot. But it turns out that many of the constitutional rights they wrote about in unqualified terms are, in fact, qualified. Some amendments, for example, tell us that the government “shall make no law ... abridging” or “shall [not] deprive any person of” or “shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge” certain rights.

Others declare that a right “shall not be violated” or “shall be preserved.” And yet many of those rights have been subject to restrictions over the years. Considering that the framers prefaced the Second Amendment with the observation that a “well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” its language—“shall not be infringed” notwithstanding—is arguably less absolutist than many other constitutional provisions that did not come with a qualifier.

Our constitutional rights are not an all-or-nothing deal. We can uphold the Second Amendment and still pass reasonable regulations that further the public’s interest in safety. So don’t feel you need to choose between protecting our Second Amendment rights and supporting sensible gun regulations. Why should you? The Constitution doesn’t.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

This part is always ignored by you guys...these are the limits...

“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.”

It says nothing about what kind of arms can be banned and actual cases by the Supreme Court.....show that military weapons are specifically protected...but nice try..


The prohibition on concealed weapons was not what you think it was...it was a belief at the time that only criminals would conceal a weapon......which is not the point of concealed carry laws today.....and even then, the prohibition on concealed carry was only in the face of all citizens being able to openly carry guns......you can't ban carry of guns......so if you prohibit concealed carry, you can't even try to ban open carry...

Another idiot that cannot read.

Scalia's opinion is quite clear, and requires no interpretation. The government, as well as state and local governments, can absolutely prohibit you from owning or carrying, certain types of weapons, or the open or concealed carrying of any weapon.

Still don't believe that? Then go into any jurisdiction that has passed those laws prohibiting you from doing just that, and see how that works out for you.

Just so you know, the Supreme Court isn't going to hear your appeal.

By definition opinions can always be up to interpretation.

 

[Penelope]

The Framers knew without the Second Amendment there could be no First Amendment....

You leftists don't believe in either Amendment or anything else in the Constitution or American history and the country finally sees you for what you are....losers unworthy of even being here.

You find the OP threatening. The state militia was to protect the states from Indians and French, British in Canada and each from each other. We have come a long way in firearms since the time of the writing and it does not say every individual should have access to an assault weapon.

 

[Penelope]

Why does that come as a surprise to lefties? Of course there are limitations to the 2nd Amendment. Maybe that's the problem with the left, they were educated in front of the T.V. set and they don't understand the Constitution and that's why they hate it.

Maybe the right has watched too many westerns and want to relive those days.

 

[bendog]

Have you read the 2008 Supreme Court decision that gives all Americans the right to own guns? Probably not. I hadn’t, until the other day, when I was stunned to find that the decision is hardly the blanket protection for gun ownership that the National Rifle Association and adamant gun rights people claim. Nor is it the sweeping defeat that those who want gun control lament. Reading it, in fact, offers some real hope that a reasonable middle ground may be possible as America gropes in these polarized times for a solution to gun violence that protects the rights of gun owners and public safety.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”


“But, but, but …,” your Facebook friend might counter, “the text of the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms ‘shall not be infringed.’ Shall Not. Be. Infringed.” Said friend may even say it in all capital letters.

Funny story. The framers used the word “shall” a lot. But it turns out that many of the constitutional rights they wrote about in unqualified terms are, in fact, qualified. Some amendments, for example, tell us that the government “shall make no law ... abridging” or “shall [not] deprive any person of” or “shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge” certain rights.

Others declare that a right “shall not be violated” or “shall be preserved.” And yet many of those rights have been subject to restrictions over the years. Considering that the framers prefaced the Second Amendment with the observation that a “well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” its language—“shall not be infringed” notwithstanding—is arguably less absolutist than many other constitutional provisions that did not come with a qualifier.

Our constitutional rights are not an all-or-nothing deal. We can uphold the Second Amendment and still pass reasonable regulations that further the public’s interest in safety. So don’t feel you need to choose between protecting our Second Amendment rights and supporting sensible gun regulations. Why should you? The Constitution doesn’t.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

You need to go back to law school.

The problem with gun nuts is they can't define "infringed."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My view is that people should have a right to not own a gun or feel they should be safe without being armed.

You have a right to not own guns. You don't have a right to feel a certain way.

You have a right to freedom of speech, yet that right has restrictions. Do you disagree with any restriction on free speech?

I am not arguing that point.

Just because he feels a certain way is no basis for infringement on rights. His feelings are irrelevant.

If someone does not feel safe and chooses to do nothing to protect himself, that is his choice and his problem. His feelings should not decide whether I have the right to be armed.

Otherwise, nobody would get a driver's license, because I would never feel safe driving on the road with anyone.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The problem with gun nuts is they can't define "infringed."

Sure they can.

infringed; infringing
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

• infringe a patent

2obsolete : defeat, frustrate

 

[DrLove]

Please give us the definition of "a well regulated militia" as intended by the authors.

There isn't one that fits in the 21st century.

Oh, GOD. Not this stupid, completely rebuffed argument. I am NOT addressing this shit again. You can shove that stupid argument right up your ass.

Yer a piece of work Boots

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Please give us the definition of "a well regulated militia" as intended by the authors.

There isn't one that fits in the 21st century.

Oh, GOD. Not this stupid, completely rebuffed argument. I am NOT addressing this shit again. You can shove that stupid argument right up your ass.

Yer a piece of work Boots

The 2nd preserves individual rights to arms. It's not about the militia. The court case cited in the OP confirms it. That issue is dead and over. I am just tired of seeing that same defeated argument.

 

[Penelope]

The problem with gun nuts is they can't define "infringed."

Sure they can.

infringed; infringing
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

• infringe a patent

2obsolete : defeat, frustrate

So we can have laws that restrict their use. Good.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Maybe the right has watched too many westerns and want to relive those days.

Reliving those days would be great. No school shootings.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So we can have laws that restrict their use. Good

No you can't. "Shall not be infringed"


You walked right into that one.

 

[martybegan]

The problem with gun nuts is they can't define "infringed."

Sure they can.

infringed; infringing
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

• infringe a patent

2obsolete : defeat, frustrate

So we can have laws that restrict their use. Good.

Most laws are about the USE of guns. You can't shoot people unless in self defense, and even brandishing or shooting a gun in public just for ha'ha's can be considered a crime.

What you can't do is just say "you don't get to have that gun because we the government of X says so"

Which is of course what progressives want.

 

[DrLove]

Let's all thank Igor for his screenshot

Earlier this morning, @NRA re-tweeted a tweet from a gun maker encouraging people to buy their loved ones guns for #ValentinesDay Since the #schoolshooting in Florida they've deleted that tweet and have gone silent. Thankfully, I took a screenshot.

igorvolsky on Twitter

 

[Penelope]

Please give us the definition of "a well regulated militia" as intended by the authors.

There isn't one that fits in the 21st century.

Oh, GOD. Not this stupid, completely rebuffed argument. I am NOT addressing this shit again. You can shove that stupid argument right up your ass.

Are you a member of the National Guard. That is the only approved militia today.

 

[DrLove]

Please give us the definition of "a well regulated militia" as intended by the authors.

There isn't one that fits in the 21st century.

Oh, GOD. Not this stupid, completely rebuffed argument. I am NOT addressing this shit again. You can shove that stupid argument right up your ass.

Yer a piece of work Boots

The 2nd preserves individual rights to arms. It's not about the militia. The court case cited in the OP confirms it. That issue is dead and over. I am just tired of seeing that same defeated argument.

You've a right to your opinion, but in the end your specious arguments are going to be shoved up the NRA's ass.

 

[whitehall]

The Va Tech shooting happened because lefties disregarded the law that applies to the 2nd Amendment. The shooter was under court ordered psychiatric counseling but "caring" lefties thought that mental illness should not interfere with a persons right to bear arms. The mental illness of the shooter should have shown up in the instant name check but lefties decreed that a person's mental illness should be confidential so it didn't show up and the maniac "legally" stockpiled weapons. It should be noted that every mass shooter in modern history was politically left leaning and mentally ill. For some reason the MSM is relatively silent about the motive of the Vegas shooter but it appears to have been the same as the democrat activist who opened fire on the republican baseball team last spring, hatred.

 

[DJT for Life]

My view is that people should have a right to not own a gun or feel they should be safe without being armed.

"A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I agree that if the person beside me was apart of a well regulated militia then if he or she is armed, my safety is not compromised and could be even enhanced.

While if that person is untrained and unvetted my security is being compromised...

Please give us the definition of "a well regulated militia" as intended by the authors.

There isn't one that fits in the 21st century.

Per the norm...you are wrong.

The Second Militia Act of 1792 details it quite nicely.

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

(Bullet #3 is the operative paragraph.)

The Militia was EVERY ABLE-BODIED MAN 18-45. That age
was amended in 1862 to EVERY ABLE-BODIED MAN 18-54.

Men who serve now, when they receive their discharge they are
placed in the Inactive Reserve, subject to recall before the age of
60. (If the situation warranted)

We are all part of the Militia...even you fucking cowards

 

[bodecea]

The Framers knew without the Second Amendment there could be no First Amendment....

You leftists don't believe in either Amendment or anything else in the Constitution or American history and the country finally sees you for what you are....losers unworthy of even being here.

As if you could take on the government with your guns.....maybe an elementary school....but not the feds.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You've a right to your opinion, but in the end your specious arguments are going to be shoved up the NRA's ass.

That will never happen. We will always be armed. It's time for the left to give up trying to control guns and start allowing us to carry in all places to protect ourselves. It is the only REAL solution.

 

[deannalw]

Let's all thank Igor for his screenshot

Earlier this morning, @NRA re-tweeted a tweet from a gun maker encouraging people to buy their loved ones guns for #ValentinesDay Since the #schoolshooting in Florida they've deleted that tweet and have gone silent. Thankfully, I took a screenshot.

igorvolsky on Twitter

Some women don't want dead flowers.

I buy my guns, but James did buy me a very nice 20 gauge for Christmas.

I like it better than dead flowers or chocolates.