Gun laws: Is this consitutional?

[KingMerv00]

Point taken. You're right. "Only" is not a term that I should have used. "Technically" would have been better, because, as you say, dicta are persuasive authority, and strongly worded dicta from the Supreme Court are rather persuasive. The effect of officially incorporating the second amendment would just be to make what is already a strong suggestion to lower courts into a mandatory order to those courts.

We now return the thread to its regularly scheduled partisan bickering.

 

[Skeptic]

They leave it out because the Supreme Court has said that the second amendment protects an individual right, and that this right is not conditional on membership in an organized militia.

Exactly. The "well regulated militia" part is an explanation of why they give the people the right to bear arms. They don't give only militia members the right to do so.

 

[dudalb]

The highest body of federal law is the Constitution. What does the Constitution say about firearms? Hint: See the Second Amendment.

Really, the whole fault with both this Arizona law, and a similar one in Montana, is that both are unnecessary. The federal government does not have the authority to restrict the rights of American citizens to own and bear arms, period. That is what the Constitution has to say on the matter.

Every law that is passed restricting this right is done in open, blatant defiance of the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land.

So private citizens have a right to own a Nuclear Weapon????

Things have changes a little since 1787....

 

[dudalb]

The highest body of federal law is the Constitution. What does the Constitution say about firearms? Hint: See the Second Amendment.

Really, the whole fault with both this Arizona law, and a similar one in Montana, is that both are unnecessary. The federal government does not have the authority to restrict the rights of American citizens to own and bear arms, period. That is what the Constitution has to say on the matter.

Every law that is passed restricting this right is done in open, blatant defiance of the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land.

So private citizens have a right to own a Nuclear Weapon????

Things have changed a little since 1787....

 

[barrymore]

The thing about capitalizing on petty technicalities--whether it be in politics, business, relationships, etc--is that that you always get b*-slapped in the end. Not only does it make the opposite party mad that you are challenging them, but doing so in such a blatant and snide manner only causes them to enact greater punitive punishment. AZ, or whomever, needs to go big or go home--challenge the reach and use of the commerce clause, or shutup. At least the Feds would respect them for their boldness and courage.

ETA: also, the party being challenged also exacerbates the situation. For instance, the Feds will be reactionary here and use the power gained to enact even more complex and overreaching laws, which will surely be challenged in the future by a "sneaky" entity, which will then be result in even more complex codes and regulations, etc...an infinite positive feedback loop.

 

[Ranb]

So private citizens have a right to own a Nuclear Weapon????

Things have changed a little since 1787....

They sure have. If you read a bit on the history of freedom of speech and of the press, you will find that those rights have expanded since the Constitution was first amended. All types of media are covered by first amendment rights now, not just the spoken word and sheets off of the printing press.

While firearms technology has also greatly improved, more restrictions have been put in place. If they are too small, too large, too strange or operate too fast, then restrictions are put in place that are de facto bans in some places. Over the years my home state of WA has been increasingly restrictive in the kinds of firearms we are allowed to own.

The second amendment merely says arms; it does not say small arms. So the 2nd amendment seems to protect any weapon, even nuclear weapons. Private ownership of nukes is not acceptable, so there has to be limits. It would be better amend the 2nd amendment instead of ignoring it.

Ranb