Neither your opinion, nor that of the dissenting justices, matter. The 2nd protects the right on an individual not connected to the militia.
governments have powers, not rights, you clearly demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the subject.
You have already been told by another poster that you do not understand the constitution. I agree with him. LOL
First and foremost, governments do not have rights, they have powers and authorities. There are no rights for either governments, or its workers. Second, if your interpretation of the Wickard case were correct, the federal government would have already used this supposed authority to completely outlaw entire classes of firearms, such as handguns and semi-automatic rifles, on the basis that their mere availability interferes with interstate commerce. However, in the seventy five years since the Wickard case was decided, no such attempt has ever been put forth. Not by any president of the united states during that time, not by even a single congressman holding office. The only logical conclusion to be had, is that the authority of interstate commerce is limited when it comes to regulating constitutional rights.
Dude look it up. This is very basic. Wickard expanded the powers of the commerce clause and led to the federal government having powers in a lot of areas with guns just being one of them. It led to the NFA. That is a fact. This is not even debatable. It is a fact
Anyone paranoid enough to believe that the government of We the People is going to take away their precious guns is incapable of rational thought processes. Every single election they screech that this will happen if they don't vote for the far right candidates in spite of the fact that successive governments on the LEFT have NEVER "taken away their guns". Facts don't matter to the paranoid.
There are more guns in this country than ever....over 300 million....and they act like they are all going to be banned tomorrow. Its laughable
Isn't the claim actually "they're trying to take away your gun rights"? If they take away those rights, then access to guns is restricted, and that's equally unacceptable as confiscation. The citizens of New Jersey, New York, California, Connecticut and Maryland no longer enjoy the same access to common, popular firearms as citizens in other states do, nor in some cases are they even allowed to possess them at all. If the law requires a law abiding owner to dispose of a firearm or accessory under penalty of law, there's certainly an element of the state "coming for you guns".
ALL rights can be REGULATED! The racist GOP has been regulating voting rights as a means of suppressing minority votes. States can and do have the authority and the right to REGULATE gun ownership. The only thing they cannot do is TAKE THEM AWAY from you UNLESS you have committed a crime. Only the paranoid believe that REGULATING firearms is the same thing as taking them away.
The national firearms act was enacted into law in the year nineteen thirty four. The Wickard case was ruled on in the year nineteen forty two. The Wickard case did not come about until eight years after the national firearms act. So indeed it is not fact. Beyond that, beyond the inability of yourself to even get basic dates and timelines correct, the federal government has never used this commerce clause authority to try and regulate the ownership of commonly available firearms. If they have this authority, why have they not used it? Why have they refrained from outlawing the ownership of handguns under all circumstances, if they are the most commonly used firearms for all crimes?
