Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond
Our Bill of Rights are not statutes!
They are GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
Well, I still don't think I've gone wrong on that. I would submit that this is a personal belief not a fact.
I haven't gone back and looked at who posted the part you quoted, PJP, but that poster was correct in the assertion that the Bill of Rights is not a statute. I won't opine as to the source, but the first part is correct. As a constitutional provision, the 2A is superior to statute.
Originally Posted by BigMikey76
. . . . To qualify as infringement, an action must, according to the definition you posted, "violate law or the rights of another." As I stated previously, since waiting periods and background checks do not stop us from owning firearms, they are not an infringement.
Each one of the measures that seem to be the hot topic in this thread (waiting period for guns, waiting period for ammo, mandatory permitting, etc), taken individually, represents a small infringement on the RKBA, in the sense that they encroach upon that area protected by the 2A. Start stacking them together, and you wind up with a significant infringement. For example, in a jurisdiction where you have to have:
A Firearms Owner's ID or license;
A Permit to Purchase;
A requirement for some classes to obtain the first two & attendant fees;
A 5-day waiting period;
A background check and an attendant fee.
All of this put together sure begins to look like fairly serious infringement to me.
Can anyone say "with absolute certainty" that the restrictions have never stopped a killing? No, but that's not the applicable legal standard. A prosecutor doesn't even have to meet the "absolute certainty" standard in a murder trial. Why would that ever be the standard for the constitutionality of a statute?
And I have to say that Bart's analogy about crowbars is spot on. These kinds of 2A restrictions operate on the assumption that every purchaser is a potential villain, and required to prove otherwise before ownership of a firearm is allowed.