Are any gun laws constitutional on state level or otherwise?

Discussion in 'Second Amendment and Legal' started by conservative, Dec 5, 2016.

  1. conservative

    conservative New Member

    279
    5
    0
    The right of the people shall not be a infringed! So how can the gov make laws restricting what types, capacities, Cary styles, and etc.?
     
  2. allenr

    allenr Member

    551
    11
    18
    Government(s) can regulate because SCOTUS ruled that some level of regulation of gun ownership is not inconsistent with 2A rights. The federal government has not prohibited each state from making its own regulations. Perhaps the all Republican Federal Government taking control in January will remedy that.
     

  3. phideaux

    phideaux Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    12,933
    100
    63
    How?

    Because SCOTUS didn't like the way the Constitution was written.....therefore they over rode it.:(





    Jim
     
  4. VThillman

    VThillman Active Member

    2,733
    24
    38
    Originally Posted by conservative [​IMG]
    The right of the people shall not be a infringed! So how can the gov make laws restricting what types, capacities, Cary styles, and etc.?


    The Framers did not understand the convolutions language is capable of. The incorporation of 'by any laws or regulations or other prohibitions' in the amendment would (probably) have prevented those convolutions. Those extra commas don't help either, though they don't actually change the meaning.
     
  5. MagBlackhawk

    MagBlackhawk Patriot

    2,150
    100
    73
    "Perhaps the all Republican Federal Government taking control in January will remedy that".

    ^ ^ We can hope so and that they get it right too, don't hold your breath though.


    Right now SCOTUS is at a 50/50 tie. The next appointment/s to the court are of Extreme importance.


    :GadsdenFlag:
     
  6. allenr

    allenr Member

    551
    11
    18

    I do agree that the language you offer had it been incorporated into 2A would have mostly eliminated today's contentious atmosphere about 2A rights.

    What I disagree with is the notion that the Framers did not understand the importance of the specifics of language. Having too much time on
    My hands since retiring from the Corps in 1989 I spent many hours studying the evolution of the Constitution I swore to protect and defend.

    If you have the time you can research the evolution of the language of 2A. The language even took the English Bill of Rights of 1689 into consideration because it established a 'right of self defense' in English law. A Militia (the basis of 2A) is a means of self defense.

    From my studies it is clear that the Framers were fully cognizant of the fact that the Constitution was to be a living document that would be subject to interpretation in the future based upon the conditions and culture of the times. The lack of specificity was intentional. They guaranteed the rights to bear arms and to vote, but they left the regulation of those rights to the legislators of the future.

    The failure of clarity and uniformity in the regulating 2A rights rests with Congresses past, present, but hopefully not the future.
     
  7. VThillman

    VThillman Active Member

    2,733
    24
    38
    I've done some studying, mostly of the first two amendments. The 1st Amendment has been subverted by Congress at various times, and belatedly repaired by SCOTUS. The 2nd Amendment has gone slowly but steadily downhill, with the consent of SCOTUS. I have become convinced that lawyers can screw up just about anything. Congress and SCOTUS are stuffed full of lawyers.