Is shall not be infringed supposed to be taken literally?

As I've already said, I do not see a background check as being a restriction on my constitutional right.

If a court building, for example, has a "no firearms" rule, as many of them do by statute, my right to keep and bear arms is not really infringed. My option is to simply not enter. If I choose to enter, then I choose to abide by that very limited statute. It is not much different than a landowner having a "no firearms" rule on his land, except that in government buildings, it may be by statute. In either case, the lawful authority has chosen not to have firearms carried on the premises, and you may stay out if you choose to. It is important to remember that all of our rights have some limitations, while the fundamental intended right remains. The freedoms of assembly, speech, and press all have reasonable limitations that, at the same time, do not "infringe" on the reasonable and robust exercise of those rights. So if firearms are "off limits" in a courthouse, I see that as a reasonable limitation for sensible reasons I can readily understand. But I do not see it as an "infringement" on my fundamental right that was intended by the framers.

I have heard of places where "open carry" is restricted in public places (parks, sidewalks, etc). I am not aware of the Supreme Court specifically deciding this issue. In 2014 just such a case was sent up to the SCOTUS, but they chose not to hear it. So whether or not those restrictions are constitutional remains an open question.

 

You have opinions about what the word infringement means. Fine. But none of those opinions are the literal definition and thus the point of this thread

 

in·fringe (ĭn-frĭnj&#8242
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infringe

Did you see that? To "infringe" presupposes that there are limits, and to "infringe" means to exceed those limits.

 

that's the point you missed. the only interpretation of the second that, when read with the tenth and article One section 8 is that the federal government had no authority in this area. when you claim it does-you can constantly incrementally infringe until there are no guns allowed or protected by the second

 

Again an opinion very few legal experts hold

- - - Updated - - -

Is that the definition the founders used?

 

do you actually have an argument? I doubt you even know any legal experts or can accurately state what they believe.

rather than parroting that nonsense over and over-how about actually addressing the point I made

if "infringe" is whatever congress wants it to be then there really is no constitutional right

which is what you believe I expect

 

Look. I'm good with my understanding, and I've made a good effort to communicate it. You can look up the definitions, including the archaic, as easily as I can. As far as I'm concerned, the intent of the Founders was clear.

 

No one can find a single document from the founders that suggests they believed that the new federal government they were creating should have any power over private citizens acting within their own sovereign states and for the first 100+ years, the commerce clause was held not to give congress any such power. FDR's statist court changed that

 

That's because murderers and robbers were put to death, not back into society where they could own guns.

 

You'll get no intelligent discourse from some in here, they're pretty obvious.

 

Its a legal term that will bind you in any contract you sign. Its as clear as legal terms get. Shall is not open to interpretation. If it doesn't matter in the constitution does that mean all the people that lost their cases over the word shall should get their money back?

 

I don't know what is worse-discussing constitutional theory with people who have never studied the subject or discussing it with those who are completely dishonest about the subject. Someone once told me, that doing so is akin to a grand master trying to play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon doesn't understand chess so it knocks the pieces down, craps on the board and flies off claiming it won. IN other words, to those observing, they cannot see that the GM totally destroyed the pigeon's gambit

 

Ok but really you are making my case again. If you say infringe means not to exceed certain limits now we can just argue over the limits. We can say an assault weapon ban is not infringe because in my opinion it does not exceed the limit. You can't have it both ways.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why do you continue?

 

because demonstrating the dishonesty of the anti gun postings has a positive impact on honest objective posters who may sometimes read this forum. The more dishonest and factually bereft the anti gun arguments are shown to be, the better it is for those who cherish constitutional freedom

 

WWFD? What would the Founders who wrote the 2nd do, or what did they do in terms of gun control?

Answer: Nothing. So No means No. Take it literally. The Founders didn't allow some slaves, wild Indians or criminals to have guns. If the crime was bad enough to hang for back in 1789, it meant they obviously felt that bad criminals didn't deserve to live---let alone have a firearm.

 

Well you lost this one. Lol

- - - Updated - - -

They also did not allow blacks to own guns

 

Constitutionality is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Any law should also be enforceable, effective, and necessary. An AWB is none of these, including Constitutional, as it violates both Miller and Heller.

- - - Updated - - -

Free blacks were allowed to own guns.

 

Back to the topic. Infringe can not be taken literally and ANY restriction can be allowed if the supreme court approves

 

Some Blacks could and some could not. But the 2nd didn't say Blacks could not have guns, anymore than it said that women and children and old people not in the militia proper could not have guns.

 

See US v Cruikshank.

 

That's nice. So?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you saying infringe should be taken literally?

 

If as you claim any decision on firearms restrictions by SCOTUS is Constitutional, then there is no actual right to own firearms. That flies in the face of Cruikshank.

 

Are you saying scotus can never over turn that decision?

 

So we can ignore all laws because SCOTUS can overturn them? You want us ruled by SCOTUS mandate? I guess you want the 10th Amendment thrown out as well? Why do we even bother with elections?

 

The infringements should be no greater on the 2nd than they were in 1789. And there you go.