Should states decide on gun ownership?

Finish your thought.

 

Wrong. Changed nothing; it confirmed the rights, it did not redefine them. It struck down the attempt to do so, and upheld the amendment..

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

The decision struck down DC's attempt to infringe on the rights protected by the second. It stated that there need be no connection to a militia, and DC could not dictate storage or status of those weapons.
You are perhaps thinking that the "such as self defense within the home" phrase was some kind of restriction? Nope- just an inclusive example saying the rights applied everywhere. Because the DC law attempted to impact stored guns inside the home, that statement only clarified that the constitution was in effect there as well as everywhere else, that there was no exception.

We have been watching hoplophobic people attempt to make end runs around or poke holes in the amendment for a very long time, attempting to "redefine" it. Our founders were well versed in the ways people manipulated words, and wise enough to keep the constitution simple and clean- yet idiot proof.

States can make laws regarding weapons- for example, waving a gun around to intimidate people without cause is "brandishing" a kind of threat- but that would also apply to knives or any threats with a potentially deadly weapon. But- they cannot make laws that violate or supersede the constitution.

 

My thought is complete. Do I need to get more specific for your understanding?

 

The concept is that powers not specifically granted to the government by the constitution remained in the authority of the states. Thus- unless the constitution granted them, the federal government does not have them. However, there are two power categories- Expressed and Implied. Expressed is included by written support, Implied is powers that would derive from the Expressed powers, and of course it is the Implied powers that are far more exposed to abuse, interpretations and corruptions.

A good article covering this is here:

https://www.thisnation.com/government/learn/power-and-federalism-granted-by-the-u-s-constitution/

 

When are you gonna get around to reading the thinking of the ratifiers of the 2ND in 1791?

 

The bolded constantly changes. The powers of the federal are increased with every new amendment and every 'expansive' interpretation by SCOTUS, for example.

 

What do you think? Come on, figure it out.

 

When will you get around to understanding that the law IS what the constitution says, not what someone thought it should say?

IF the ratifiers didn't accept it, it would not have been ratified and it wouldn't be so. What they "thought" is woulda-coulda. You're drinking a beer, when you coulda had a V-8. But You Didn't.


How many times do you have to get shot down on this?

 

I'm pointing out what the ratifiers of the 2ND in 1791 thought what the 2ND should mean.

 

Well, you hit somthing accurate
The constitution is changed only by the vote of the people. The interpretation is changed, to some extent, by interpretation of implied powers by the courts-
and that is what the unscrupulous people work on every day.

Like termites in your house, trying to destroy the framework....
Call the exterminators.

 

States should not decide on gun ownership because to do so would be illegal. The right to bear arms is recognized by the COTUS, the supreme law of the USA, and the states are legally bound by the COTUS.

 

I grasped the point firmly and responded to it beautifully. The Federal Government powers are more restricted than State Power. The Federal Government cannot superseded State regulation were the Federal Government has no legitimate role.

Dred Scott was a false interpretation of the relevant statutes and constitutional provisions.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of The People and the 14th amendment incorporated this Federal Limitation onto the States.

Our Constitutional Liberal Democracy is a constantly correcting and perfecting system of every more greatly securing individual rights. This is clearly outlined in the preamble. "Forming a MORE PERFECT Union". This is the task we inherit from our parents and pass to our children.

 

As I said we are created with our fundamental inherent rights not born with them.

 

Yeah, well, many SCOTUS courts have deemed so. That doesn't make that any more accurate in interpreting The Constitution than the Roe V. Wade interpretation.

 

Yes, and there is no good defense from scofflaw judges.
Nevertheless, The COTUS, not the SCOTUS, is the law.

 

Did you just back up your claim of misinformation by stating your opinion on the matter?

 

States already have the power to restrict gun ownership - so long as they do not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

 

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

No the second amendment says what kind of restrictions on gun ownership there should be.

No amendments in the Bill of Rights or in the Constitution enumerated abortion is right. Roe v Wade technically violated the 10th amendment. That's why they're talking about overruling

 

No. The court stated it outright.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Good news - you'll find out in June.

 

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

The same source as the right to life, liberty, property and self-determination.

 

They thought the right of the people to keep and bear armsshall not be infringed.
The right of the people.
Not the state.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
But, the people.
As such, there's no support for the idea that this right to keep and bear arms rested upon some connection to the militia, because "the people" and "the militia" are not the same.

 

Well now, at least, there appears to be one or two non-authoritarians out there.

IMO, if one wishes to remove the polarization in American gov't, that is a very difficult task since most Americans are authoritarian from the Roe V. Wade demanders down to the universal guns rights in in the 2ND crowd.

 

COTUS? The (not supreme) court of the US?

BTW, I don't mind SCOTUS but I'd rather more amendments be passed by the people.