I'm sure you're aware that the 2nd amendment, however it's interpreteded, cannot be in any way construed to grant any legislative authority to congress.
the first part was given as a reason for the second, not as a condition. and if you understand the concept of a militia, there is no other way to interpret the second since in order for a functioning militia to be called up from the citizenry, the citizenry must be armed prior to the call up
Your hypothetical about confusion in the Continental Congress that that never happened led me to believe you were a little under the weather. You know... like suggesting if my uncle had teats he might be my aunt... but he doesn't... so he isn't.
"Early laws confirmed the power of state governments to impress or take the firearms of citizens if needed. Militia-eligible men were typically required to obtain and maintain in working order the necessary combat-worthy firearm, at their own expense, along with the necessary accoutrements of powder, shot, and the like. In Virginia in the early 1600s, men were required to bring their firearms to church for fear of Indian attacks. In some states, laws stipulated when, where, and under what circumstances guns were to be loaded or unloaded. In Maryland, privates or non-commissioned officers who used their muskets for hunting were fined, according to a 1799 law. These laws disappeared with the end of the old militia system in the mid-1800s." https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp Interesting. It would probably be more accurate to say that militia members kept rather than owned their arms. In modern parallel would be a suspended police officer being required to turn in their service weapon to a supervisor.
this further establishes that the founders did not intend for the FEDERAL government to have any gun control powers
I wasn't talking about confusion. I was adressing the statement I hear all too frequently: Only the supreme court knows what the constitution means. And if that is not your stance, then perhaps I misunderstood you. My point is that the constitution is a document written in English. It was read, debated, and ratified by conventions in all of the states that signed on.
And still you haven't cited any constitutional language that would empower congress to make any law respecting the sale, ownership, or use of firearms.
Nothing in the constitution allows congress to make any law respecting the use of guns for private purposes.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution
where does the federal government get any power to restrict that? have you read the Cruikshank decision? it notes that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT dependent on the constitution. what does that mean to you
I love quoting the constitution too!! Those quotes have nothing to do with congress's power to make any law respecting the use of guns for private purposes.
this silliness comes from the following: 1) a leftwing activist supports gun control to use as a weapon against rightwing voters 2) he knows that the second amendment is a serious obstacle to the weaponization of gun control 3) so he argues the second amendment means something else
Taxes are only allowed to be levied: "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Not to punish gun owners.
In Heller v US, the Supreme Court held that the "militia" wording in the Second Amendment in no way limited the right of any citizen to own or bear arms.
There is absolutely no possible way that the 2nd amendment could be construed to give congress legislative authority to make any law respecting firearms ownership.
yeah, but the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. and I disagree that it is constitutional for the federal government to regulate firearms sales-that is a fiction FDR created. it's not properly based on the federal constitution
the court decides if laws and government actions are constitutional and outlines the breadth and limits of government. When a case reaches the Supreme Court, typically through a process of several years, it’s important because the precedent the majority opinion sets is then the standard by which future laws are measured. That’s due to the principle of “stare decisis,” Latin for “to stand by a decision,” where a current court should be bound by previous rulings (What is the Supreme Court and why does it have so much power? | CNN Politics)
But not owning them. Or manufacturing them. Or giving them to someone. Just sales your talking about?
So the USGov decides whether what the USGov is doing is legal or not. Gotcha. Sounds a lot like the fox guarding the hen house.
There are THREE separate and distinct branches in the federal government: The EXECUTIVE (enforces laws), the LEGISLATIVE (makes laws) and the JUDICIAL (interprets laws)... They are kept coequal by "checks and balances" Each operates independently... well... until Biden anyway
Yes, we all learned that from Schoolhouse Rock. "The court decides if laws and government actions are constitutional" [your words]. And the judicial branch's opinion is the end of the discussion. So, USGov decides what the constitution means, not the actual written words on the page.
