Handguns cannot be banned...

What does the 2nd amendment prohibit the federal government from doing?

 

So the government decides who has rights? Individual rights actually don't exist. That's an interesting constitution!

 

Of course. And every single right can be and is restricted.

 

Outright banning arms. The federal government can and does restrict them. And this is perfectly constitutional.

 

Well except for the fact that the 2nd amendment prohibits the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. You know what "shall not" means, right?

 

No, it doesn't say "outright banning of arms". Try again.

 

Nope. Every single right can be and is restricted.

 

I don't have to try again. You were given the correct answer. I suggest you actually read a Supreme Court ruling on the matters. DC v Hellar is a great place to start.

 

What was I wrong about?

Just one instance will doo doo

 

Such does not mean that such restrictions are either legal, or pass constitutional muster. Rights cannot be restricted for the simple purpose of ensuring that they are restricted, nor can they be restricted simply because government wishes to do so.

 

Not all restrictions are Constitutional.

 

The federal government can outright ban some arms too and does currently

 

Which is what I just said.

 

Every single restriction currently in place is constitutional.

 

Which firearms are outright banned?

 

At state and local levels?

 

I think the constitution is overrated.

 

Of course. Show me a restriction currently in place that has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

 

If it had been ruled unconstitutional, it would no longer be in place, would it? If they haven't been ruled on, then they are simply in place awaiting such a ruling.

Would a ban on "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" be unconstitutional? If a ruling based on "most useful to the miltary" can be created, is the any firearm that can't be considered "most useful to the military", given the mission of the military?

 

Very good. You just agreed with me. Every restriction currently in place, is constitutional.

 

Unless they've been validated by SCOTUS, they haven't been determined to be Constitutional or not.

 

Nope. All laws are presumed constitutional, until ruled unconstitutional by the scotus.

 

"Presumed" doesn't mean actually Constitutional, does it? The presumption of Constitutionality is also not held in all cases.

http://volokh.com/2011/06/30/more-on-the-presumption-of-constitutionality/

 

I’m just telling you how US law operates. All laws are constitutional, until ruled otherwise.

 

"Presumed" constitutional. There would be no reason to review them otherwise.

Suppose one state says open carry is the law and concealed carry is against the law, and an adjoining state says that open carry is against the law and concealed carry is legal. Can conflicting laws both be Constitutional?