Well if we are talking about what the Constitution says, doesn't it say "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."? To me that indicates the right to keep and bear arms has been delegated to the United States, therefore how can the states make any ruled restricting guns?
I think your error is when you say that the right to keep and bear arms has been delegated to the united states.
The constitution delegates only a small set of legislative powers to the general government. These are enumerated in article one, section eight. None of the legislative powers have anything to do with possession of arms by the people of the several, sovereign states.
I was not talking legislative powers. I am talking the Bill of Rights. If you are saying that the Second Amendment means nothing to the states then am I to assume you feel the First Amendment has no meaning to the states? It would seem to me, according to your theory, that the states would be free to prohibit the free exercise of religion or abridge the freedom of speech.
Yep, the bill of rights circumscribed the powers of the general government only. The member of the union are sovereign states and would be free to do so. However, I know of no state in the union whose constitution does not guarantee freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Show where in the constitution it says preschoolers cant have guns. Shall not be infringed!!!!! Merica
Exactly. The treaty between the states gives no power to the general government to restrict the possession of arms by the people of the several states. However, each of the sovereign states who are members of the union can certainly make their own laws concerning firearms.
It doesn't say they can't. It only guarantees that the militia can have guns. The militia is defined in US Code with a minimum age of 18. So people under 18 are not the militia and are not guaranteed the right to bear arms. So it then falls to the states to decide.
That is correct. It would technically be constitutional to ban guns to people who are over the maximum age of the militia as defined in US Code. ...but show me a politician who would try to legislate a ban on firearms against the elderly and I'll show you a politician whose career is over.
Heres an idea: Run for office on the following platform- 'we're gonna ban guns for everyone who isn't technically the militia as defined in US Code.' which would be: minors, women, the elderly and the disabled. What do you guess your chances of winning would be?
