is no place else in the constitution, and that is the case for a REASON. ALL gun laws are Unconstitutional.
all federal gun control laws that apply to individuals not in federal service are unconstitutional for TWO reasons the most important is the fact that the federal government was never delegated the proper power to make laws about what firearms individual citizens can own or keep and bear. The commerce clause was never intended to be such a grant of power and was never intended to apply to individual citizens The second of course is the bill of rights, specifically, the second, ninth and tenth amendments as to state gun control, the tenth amendment does allow certain police powers and now we have a conflict when the state police powers infringe on the 2A. and since legitimate police powers may INFRINGE then a balancing test must be made.
When the people of the several states established their union, they delegated to it a small set of powers. Restricting firearms possession by the people of the several sovereign states was not among the powers delegated.
One must ask why there was no constitutional convention being pushed when the federal government began overstepping its boundaries in the beginning, when it was still small and weak.
The Second Amendment was almost certainly intended only to apply to the federal government, limiting the Powers under the U.S. Constitution. That is apparent looking at the context of the Amendment, the wording of the other original Amendments, and the wording of the original Constitution itself. That is not to say I would not support a "Second Amendment" type of language being inserted into State Constitutions, but it is important to examine original intent, within the framework of Federalism. The real problem is that the Supreme Court has, in recent decades, been misconstruing other parts of the U.S. Constitution, trying to apply them to the States, and so they would be inconsistent if they did not apply the same type of logic to the Second Amendment, which is why they have been desperately looking for an "escape hatch", some way to explain away the right to bear arms. It's really a case where one misinterpretation of the meaning of the Constitution is leading, out of necessity, to another type of ridiculous interpretation of the original meaning. The favored "escape hatch" seems to be trying to interpret the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," to be a limitation on the rights expounded in the Amendment, when in actuality it was fairly clear this was simply meant to be an explanatory clause, which does not detract from the rights of the people in any way, but rather was intended to clarify and strengthen the rights of the States. In other words, the people have a right to arms from the powers of the federal government, and the Constitution recognized the importance of each State being able to maintain a Militia—one that could however be called up by the federal government, under another provision in the Constitution.
Nobody is trying to infringe upon the military's weaponry. They are the militia. "Well regulated" does not mean just any old body who wants one to boot.
It is not explicitly one of the delegated Powers, but presumably the founders anticipated that the U.S. government might try to find legal means to circumvent the clear intentions expressed in the Constitution. For example, placing a Tax on guns. Not sure if you are aware of this, but under current U.S. law (26 U.S. Code ยง 5841) it is actually considered a crime to even make a gun without first "registering" it. The tax is only 1 dollar, but it is still the principle of the thing that clearly seems to violate the spirit of the Constitution. Before you are allowed to saw off the barrel of your shotgun, you are legally required to pay a 200 dollar tax. Seems blatantly unconstitutional, and some of you reading this might be staggering in disbelief, but I assure you this is indeed the current law, and people have been sentenced to long prison sentences. Apparently the courts do not believe that a tax on "making" a firearm is a violation of the right to keep arms. Even if you took a boat and did it in the middle of the ocean, it would still be a violation of the law (the Constitution gives Congress the "Power to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas"). I do of course wonder about if an American citizen broke that law in Antarctica... whether the courts would find that to be unconstitutional.
You don't know what you're talking about. For a clue, read the clauses in A1S8 that relate to the armed forces and the militia. For another clue, look up the federal statute that defines the militia pursuant to the A1S8 militia clauses. In the context of 2A, that phrase has nothing to do with who has a right to a weapon and who doesn't.
the anti gun extremists can never tell us where congress was actually PROPERLY delegated ANY power to regulate firearms .
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson Which is supposed to be a deterrent for redefining the words. Only a criminal would want to disarm lawful Americans. That list would include liberals, communists, and a whole host of anti- Rights people..........
bs, the militia, at the time that the constitution was written, was every white male betwee the ages of 18 and 40. there WAS no US military, dude. The original articles of confederation did not allow the Feds to have a military force.
From the militia act of 1792 I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
While I'm at it That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes. Basically the law at the time required that every able bodied and not exempted white man between 18 and 45 own the arms and equipment of the soldier of the day. That these arms must meet minimum requirements and standards and that they are exempt from seizure. If this law was updated it would likely say something along the lines of... That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with either a good select-fire rifle chambered in 5.56 NATO or a good semi-automatic or select fire rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO, ...........
The Constitution draws a distinction between the militia and regular military forces. Individual States are not allowed to maintain "troops" (Article I, section 10). The Constitution also says: Congress shall have Power [...] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; [...] " (Article I, section 8)
