Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

Considering that not all arms are legal, is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited? It would certainly seem to be limited.

 

We've had this argument repeatedly before.

The problem is, under the original Constitution it was only a right under the federal Constitution, not the respective state constitutions.
There was a very different understanding back then of the balance between individual state and federal jurisdictional powers, what one might even refer to as "sovereignty".

If you want to argue about this, we can, but we will do it in a separate thread, because I am not going to derail your discussion here.

Refusing to recognize this being the case, does in some way put the rights in the Bill of Rights in jeopardy, somewhat paradoxically. Because then there becomes no way to restrict freedoms without doing so wholesale.

To emphasize again, the Bill of Rights was intended to be a protection from federal powers, not of government altogether.

 

No. Associate Justice Scalia wrote for the Court in the third section of the Heller decision, "[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

 

Actually the states are not allowed to violate the Bill of rights so yes it does restrain all gov. your interpretation is saying if the state wants to ban a religion it can or stop the press it can. see how that does not work?

 

I believe this has been explained to you on numerous occasions.
"Arms", as the term is used in the amendment, does not mean "every weapon you can think of", just as "free speech" does not mean "every possible expression of every possible idea"
That there are weapons which lie outside the right to keep and bean arms does not mean the right to keep and bear the arms that fall inside that definition is limited.

 

How do we know how "arms" and "free speech" is used in the Constitution?

 

No right is unlimited. There are reasonable limitations on all of the things that we can do.

 

Jurisprudence.

 

Then is it really FREE speech?

 

It's not unlimited. It's a well-regulated right that shall not be infringed. It was written to protect both a duty and a right to bear arms in the militia.

 

Nothing in the statement, above, is true.

 

The second amendment simply prohibits the federal government from interfering with the right of the people to bare arms. The sentence structure indicates that the militia clause is a present participle with does not affect the verb nor subject of the second amendment. Subject being people, verb being shall.

Scalias ruling should not be constructed to mean banning common use rifles is within the power of the federal government. State laws are another matter entirely.

 

Then we're onto Alito's ruling in McDonald and the ruling in Caetano v Massachusetts.

 

The 2nd has been incorporated aginats the states.

 

Buy a semi automatic rifle in Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, or New York then. To be clear I’m pro second amendment but nothing about semi automatic rifle ownership/sales is anywhere near settled.

 

It should have been settled in 2016. Now that the Court isn't subject to the whims of Roberts, perhaps we can fix that. Kavanaugh can just copy and paste his dissent from Heller II.

 

Possibly. I am highly Dubious that ACB is as conservative as the media painted her to be.

 

That doesn't change the fact the 2nd has been incorporated against the states.

 

by a later ruling precedent from the Supreme Court

It's a mistake, because once they hold that it applies equally against the states, they are going to water the whole thing down, like they already have.

Then it won't really mean anything solid against the federal government.

 

Nope.

 

No, nor should it be.

 

Correct! Our rights stop at the point they do others harm. You’re right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose.

Can’t use your speech to insight a panic or violence. Can’t slander a person. Plenty more that just aren’t coming to me at the moment. Reasonable limits.

 

Yeah, you WOULD say that living in a HELL HOLE like the UK where people are charged for calling a police horse gay!

 

Exactly. Not free speech. There's not even free speech in America!

 

Can you cite something specific?