Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
The 2nd Amendment says "arms" which is riddled with ambiguity. So...in keeping with your ironclad logic...my natural rights are to bear arms...technically nuclear weapons are "arms." Do you support the independent manufacture of WMD'S??? Is that constituionally protected?
The 2nd Amendment as passed by the Congress:
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.
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
Technically the WMD's are, but... keep in mind that the right of life and liberty is consistent through all the state constitutions. One can not reasonably make the argument of a need of such a device to which they can use practically without violating the life and liberty of an innocent. Because of such, it is reasonable to restrict such ownership in my opinion.
As for an assault rifle (or whatever the hell those making such a claim are talking about), well... can reasonably be kept and used without endangering the life and liberty of another.
As for the above comment, the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government, not the states. It has not been incorporated. So in this case, it falls on the state of Missouri's constitution, which personally I don't think are constitutional in applying (unless they are amending the constitution and follow the procedures that the state requires to amend such).
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.
The entire Bill of Rights has been incorporated to the States. They are bound by the same laws as the Federal Government.
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.
Federal law trumps state law.
Guns was an American right. Thats what colonist used to fight off the British. It was so important that it was the 2nd Amendment in the constitution.
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.
Federal law trumps state law.
Sorry, that is for DC, not the rest of the states. Federal law does not trump state law. The 2nd amendment is not incorporated and therefore is not transferable to the states. The 2nd amendment pertains to the federal government solely. Also, the 2nd amendment is a complete restriction of the federal government. It has no authority whatsoever. That is the constitutionally correct aspect of it.
Missouri has its own constitution to which governs the 2nd ammendment and according to its own constiuttion, they can not apply such without proper process.
Places like CA and NY have no constitutional protection and are free to regulate, ban, etc... because of such. In places like MO, Texas, etc... they have to follow their constitutional law, not federal law.
Read up on incorporation and see what amendments have been incorporated. The 2nd amendment isn't there.
Do you need a little lesson in what a so called "assault " weapon is ? Let me ask you this, if a single shot Derringer is used in a murder is that now an assault weapon ? So if an AR is used for shooting paper targets, what kind of "assaulting" is that doing ? The lack of common sense by the politicians, media and sheeple is just mind boggleing.
Guns was an American right. Thats what colonist used to fight off the British. It was so important that it was the 2nd Amendment in the constitution.
And that right still exists. It just isn't unlimited like you want it to be. But guess what. No Constitutional Amendment is unlimited, not even the 1st.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
