Like I posted earlier in this thread, the phrase 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' is probably, IMO, the most misinterpreted phrase in The Constitution.
^^^^ Professional-grade nonsense. The power to regulate the militia was given to Congress in Article 1 Sec 8; the 2nd limits, not adds, to this power.
I rely on the writings and speech of the passers of the second amendment in 1791. The passers were quite concerned that there wasn't sufficient militia to protect the federal government, for example.
Yes... ...and... ....the power to regulate the militia was given to Congress in Article 1 Sec 8; the 2nd limits, not adds, to this power.
The second limits federal power in that the federal can't infringe on the arms rights established by state constitutions.
1) the founders were charged with creating a new federal government that the several states had to approve of 2) the founders never intended that the new federal government intrude on obvious state powers such as arms control involving individual citizens in a private capacity 3) no such power was mentioned in the body of the constitution 4) the anti federalists wanted stronger guarantees so the second amendment, along with nine others were enacted 5) these amendments mainly were negative restrictions-that reiterated that the federal government lacked certain powers almost 100 years later- the post reconstruction amendments were enacted and slowly, the rights contained in the Bill of Rights were incorporated by the 14th. That means while the bill of rights only were intended to apply to the federal government, the 14th amendment ultimately meant that they now applied to state government
the second amendment prevents teh federal government from infringing on the rights of individuals. with incorporation in now prevents STATE and local governments from so infringing
they said NOTHING about their new government having any power over individual private citizens acting in private capacities in any of the several states.
So, use as a benchmark for arms usage in America the reconstruction amendments, er, 13-15 and not bogusly use the second amendment as a benchmark for arms rights since the second was passed to regulate state militias and prevent the federal from infringing on arms rights established by state constitutions.
Yes. The oft misinterpreted last 13 words of the second amendment prevents the federal from infringing on the rights of individuals.
He's returned to his "If you read something that that does not exist - and I know it does not exist, which is why I cannot cite / copy / paste it" nonsense. Back on ignore.
so you are claiming the first 12 words actually gives powers to the federal government that are not included in Article One Section Eight
that really disputes nothing I said. since you agree that at least part of the second amendment was intended and does properly prevent the federal government from interfering with the keeping and bearing of arms by private citizens, by definition, once incorporated, the second amendment does the same thing concerning state governments
what other bill of rights amendment expands federal power. and where do you find that in the first 12 words-well regulated is not linked to the federal government
how many cases involving the second amendment have you argued to federal courts? how many supreme court briefs were you listed as Counsel in? how many law schools have you appeared at to lecture on second amendment law?
