Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I don't think that's exactly true. Again, when some of the founding fathers were on the board of governors at the University Of Virginia, they passed a rule saying no guns were allowed on campus. They didn't say you could have a gun as long as you weren't threatening someone...they said you could not possess a gun on campus at all. The founding fathers apparently did not believe that such a ban was a violation of the second amendment.
|
Well, you are free to hold a wrong conclusion based on a mistaken assumption. The correct legal situation has been explained to you multiple times; I'm not bothering with it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I'm not someone who thinks the constitution is a living, evolving document. I prefer to think of what they meant, at the time it was crafted. The evidence seems compelling to me (we can disagree obviously), that they felt that certain restrictions in the name of public safety, are well within the intent of the second amendment.
|
If you want to conform your thinking to the framers then you will be wrong again. It isn't the 2nd Amendment that restrains government, it is the fact that no power exists to write those restrictions. The 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.
IOW, there is no, "2nd Amendment right" to point to . . .
The Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for over 140 years stating that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.
If the right is violated by a law or regulation it is a simple example of the legislature overstepping its authority and generally, the government exceeding the powers granted to it in the Constitution. That's the definition of an unconstitutional law.