|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
The legality of the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
With all the chatter around Virginia regarding Second Amendment sanctuaries, gun advocates argue gun control laws will infringe on their Second Amendment right.
However, Brad Jacob, an Associate Professor of Law at Regent University, said it may be possible for Virginia to restrict certain types of guns, like semi-automatic weapons because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on gun restrictions.
“The courts will, in time, I think give us a tighter definition of what’s covered by the Second Amendment, what weapons could be banned without violating the Second Amendment,” said Jacob. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(12/6/2019)
|
" ... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" A lot of people seem to be clueless about what "infringe" means.
You can buy a dictionary at any good bookstore .... order one from Amazon.com, or go to an online dictionary.
YOU CANNOT BAN ANY TYPE OF ARM AND NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
We have devolved into a truly ignorant culture. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/6/2019)
|
The premise of the title is absurd on its face.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. It says so, itself. There IS no question of 'legality' regarding an enumerated right.
Its meaning is determined by text, history and tradition, not innovative grammatical parsing. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/6/2019)
|
"However, Brad Jacob, an Associate Professor of Law at Regent University, said it may be possible for Virginia to restrict certain types of guns, like semi-automatic weapons because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on gun restrictions."
That is misleading, if not a deliberate lie.
U.S. v. Miller did just that in 1939.
The Court ruled that arms that don't meet the following criteria are not protected:
1. in common use
2. have some reasonable relationship to militia use
3. could contribute to the common defense
4. are any part of the "ordinary" military equipment
Re: semi-automatic weapons
1. check
2. check
3. check
4. check
So the Court HAS ruled on this matter, eight decades ago. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
