I suppose you hate the NRA as well, but where do you think we would be without them today? That's not a rhetorical question. I suspect the Second Amendment would be but a wistful relic of (some) history books if it weren't for the NRA. You will scoff, but it's an easy point to make. In 2008, we came ONE SINGLE VOTE on the Supreme Court from losing all significant meaning to the Second Amendment. Heller confirmed that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own and maintain an operable firearm in their own home, unconnected to service in an organized militia, or today's National Guard. ONE SINGLE VOTE. And how did we end up with the five votes that saved it? Over the years prior to that case, the NRA's advocacy for Presidential candidates and Senators who nominated and confirmed those five justices. If ONE SINGLE VOTE had gone the other way, NOBODY would have any significant protection to even OWN a firearm, much less carry one in public......
Wow…Did you drink Mike Bloomberg’s 64oz koolaid?
You give the NRA credit where no credit is due. We would not have the Gun Control Act of 1968 if the NRA would not have supported it. As a matter of fact, the NRA co-authored the gun control legislation.
Yes, you did drink the koolaid. You are parroting what the lower courts claim Heller says.
Let’s have a history lesson again.
The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison
, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury
court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
“Shall not be infringed” is not unambiguous.
The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank
, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago
, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller
, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.”
The Court then cited Cruikshank
as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller
held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.
More importantly, Heller
did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.”
The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”
Lower courts, federal and state, keep quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) for the proposition that keeping and bearing arms only applies to the home and the second amendment is not absolute.
Let’s be clear, Scalia gave his "opinion." His opinion is not the law. Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land. The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. And, congressional law (statutory law) and treaties are only lawful if they pass constitutional muster. In Heller, Scalia told you what the law of the land is, the “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” Then Scalia reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.” Scalia’s opinion is directed towards two sovereigns, the fed and the states, not the citizens.
Scalia, speaking for the court, specifically stated what the law of the land is. Anything else he says is his opinion, dicta. "Not absolute" is an opinion, it is not the law. The Supremes have made it clear, the 1A and 2A are absolute. Neither Congress nor the states can make a law that interferes with 1A or 2A, period. And, that is why “only in the home” was struck down because it infringed on a preexisting right.
Just like the lower courts saying the Supreme Court proclaims that: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a crime. The case they rely on is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
“Shouting fire in a crowded theater” in of itself is protected speech. The result of that free speech is what could be a crime. Not the speech itself. The actual sentence from Schenck is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” The panic is the crime, the tort.
Res judicata facit ex albo nigrum; ex nigro, album; ex curvo, rectum; ex recto, curvum
Translation: A thing adjudged [the solemn judgment of a court] makes white, black; black, white; the crooked, straight; the straight, crooked.
The 2A says “shall not be infringed.” It does not say shall not be infringed except for what the Supreme Court says. The manner of carry cannot be regulated because it is an infringement.
The Supreme Court told you what the 2A says, the law of the land says it shall not be infringed.