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.
Correct on the first, not so much on the second. We are talking about a state enacting gun control. The first limitations on that action would be the state's own constitution and the treatment of the right under state law.
The federal 2nd Amendment is secondary in this circumstance and its guidance is not decisive. Since SCOTUS applied the 2nd to the states under the 14th Amendment in 2010, the enforcement of the 2nd against state law has been in suspended animation.
While SCOTUS in Heller did say that the right secured by the 2nd is not unlimited that doesn't mean the powers of government to impact the RKBA are limitless.
Heller warns modern judges and legislators against constant reassessing of the value of the right to arms in modern society:
"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."
And Heller doubles down on that theme . . . and this can only be taken as SCOTUS speaking directly to legislatures and their claimed power to dictate from on-high to the people what arms they are allowed to possess and use:
". . . the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."
I'm certain the Virginia Democrats will test the limits of state and federal rights protection. We will see how the courts will address this . . . If a civil war doesn't break out first.
.
I don’t disagree if we are looking specifically at current bills. They may well be overstepping.
The only people who contend that we need to decipher the intentions of the Founders are the ones who disagree with what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very plainly say.
The only people who contend that we need to decipher the intentions of the Founders are the ones who disagree with what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very plainly say.
So why have the SCOTUS? Should we abolish Article III?
Some govt employees put on robes, held a meeting and decided the non-robe wearing govt employees were correct.
Dr. Suess couldn't have come up with a better story.
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.
