Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

joemoorcarz t1_ircs7qy wrote

Read Artical 1 of the constitution. Federal law is the supreme law of the land. So all amendments are automatically incorporated and apply to the states. Also read tenth amendment states are not allowed to touch anything already covered by the Fed. Federal law has laws on both free speech and firearms. So the states need to keep their winning hands off them.

5

Nicholas-Steel t1_irdi7zv wrote

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

People like to ignore the words "well regulated" when fighting those trying to make permits necessary.

−20

Bedbouncer t1_irf6sey wrote

>People like to ignore the words "well regulated" when fighting those trying to make permits necessary.

People like to ignore the words "the right of the people" when it comes to trying to make those permits unavailable.

Pointing at a single phrase and saying "it's so clear what it means" and ignoring subsequent SCOTUS rulings is like pointing at the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and saying "See, North Korea is a democracy, it's right in the name!"

9

Nicholas-Steel t1_irh9v0y wrote

Right, and that wouldn't be infringed for those forming a well regulated militia.

1

Bedbouncer t1_irizj08 wrote

Your interpretation, while once considered valid, is no longer the law of the land.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

I've never believed that the collective right theory was correct, based on other writings at the time and the way it was incorporated into many state constitutions at the time.

Also note that a collective right approach would allow the civilian members of a militia to own machine guns and shoulder-fired rockets without restriction, as there would be no counter-argument to arming a militia with the same weapons available to the average full-time national soldier. I don't think many gun control advocates would be pleased with the results of a true collective rights interpretation.

I feel the problem with the NY law is no so much that it violates the 2nd Amendment (because some restrictions are legal), but that it violates the 14th Amendment by applying the 2nd in an unequal manner among state residents. Imagine if NY had a "press license" and you couldn't publish without that license and to get the license you had to prove that you were a citizen of good standing, that you'd never published anything controversial in the past, and that you had a "special need" to publish information to the public, and all of those restrictions could be bypassed if you were rich and connected with the people who issued the licenses.

1