Any law that runs contrary to the constitution..that dusty old law of the land, is invalid from its inception. It is an affront to justice and deserves to have it's promulgators flogged and imprisoned. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you techno-fascists NOT understand ?
The Courts interpret what is constitutional....not our motley crew of scholars......and clearly the Supreme Court has allowed restrictions and regulations on gun ownership in all their decisions for the last 50 years. To suggest that gun registration is unconstitutional is simply incorrect. To suggest that a City like Chicago can ban handgun possession in the Manner which they did is constitutional.....nope.....the SThe Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.upreme Court said that was a violation of the second amendment.
Folks under 21 owning hand guns as recently as October of this year the courts said that restrictions were constitutional:
The Supremes since the passage of the 14th amendment have argued that
The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.
Explaining that “the needfor defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., the Court found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___, ___–___. It thus concluded that citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___. Heller also clarifies that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradi-tions,” Glucksberg, supra, at 721. Heller explored the right’s origins in English law and noted the esteem with which the right was re-garded during the colonial era and at the time of the ratification ofthe Bill of Rights.
The courts very clearly have for 100 years allowed for classification systems which interface with the bill of rights and restrict those rights. When a particular right is deemed fundamental as is the case of the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, the state cannot merely propose a manner of classification which outright bans something without showing a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST[b] which in the recent Supreme Court Cases in DC and Chicago the Court found that these regulations could not be justified with a compelling state interest when the tenets of self defense and constitutional protection are clear. However.....there is nothing which says that under the 14th amendment that some regulations will in fact meet the court's long established burden, and the recent cases which restrict handgun ownership under 21 years of age are clear that the 2nd amendment rights and their application to the states under the 14th amendment are not absolute rights. Professor T needs to either make a good faith attempt to read the Supreme Court rulings and understand the same, or at least have the integrity to admit that he does not believe the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the Constitution, and therein save of us the time of attempting to have an intelligent conversation of the limits of government.
Home
