The gun amendment is just that, an amendment to the constitution. This gives the right to the federal government to change amendments, an example of this in action being prohibition. I really dont believe that violent crime criminals should be considered a different issue because the laws and restrictions pertaining to them does not mean they have to have all their rights taken away because of their crime after they have served their sentence. Things like the mandatory wait period before buying a gun DO have reasons in them for why they exist. Its for the very basic reason to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, ie those who have committed a violent crime. They were created in order to allow this country to better enforce laws made which relate to criminals and their treatment.
Quote:
"In Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922
(1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ``Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' See Lewis v. United States,
445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the ``Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia''')."
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/s...ion/amdt2.html
|
This whole section and the case in question does not really give a full defining definition to what is impinging on rights and what isnt, but it provides a glimmer of illumination as to what possibly COULD be impinging on rights. The courts at this time have not really decided one way or another on what infringes the second amendment and what does not
Also in the original written constitution the amendment in question read as so:
Quote:
|
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
|
There is supposed to be no comma after Arms as well as none after militia. While this might seem to be a small point, it also changes the definition of the whole amendment in question. Also please note that the right to bear arms is also contingent with the fact that it has to be justifiable as for use in a militia.
As long as the ability to keep and bear arms is not infringed on, I dont believe that there is a conflict of interest in the regulation of getting guns. When arguing about whether guns should be regulated or not, please keep in mind the context of the clause provided.
Furthermore lets explore the definition of well regulated as it was defined at the time of the constitution.
Quote:
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."
-Brian T. Halonen http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
" "well regulated militia" had a meaning at that time(ca. 1789) in the nature of "a properly functioning militia" - which would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped militia (since it was common at that time for militiamen to bring their own firearms, with which they were already proficient.)"
- Brian T. Halonen
|
Laws created that make guns which have been modified from their original use and therefore become dangerous for the user illegal are not against the constitution, as the gun would not be functioning as it would have originally been expected to.
You cant reasonably argue that all legislation on guns and the possession and ability to have them at the national level is against the second amendment. To do so is to take parts out of the amendment and not consider the whole as it would have been defined at the time it was written and ratified.
The amendment implies nothing about guns being justifiable for people who are not well trained and versed in their usage, as somebody who is untrained yet still owns a gun and is still able and LEGAL to use that gun, would not be able to well contribute to a well-regulated militia as it was originally meant.
Ive seen many many people who are against gun laws ignore the part of the second amendment which says that"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, " which implies that the whole amendment is about the topic of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA and everything thereafter pertains to that fact. If the weapon in question is not something that would fit that part of the constitution, there is nothing wrong with the banning of that weapon.