Originally Posted by Tom Servo
That would be the part that was interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2008.
And your fellow moderator, Frank Ettin, periodically reminds me that the Constitution doesn't say what it says, it says what the Supreme Court says it says. (Okay, that's not exactly
what Frank tells me ... but close.) I understand that Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller
said that the 2nd Amendment right
to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation. But ... that's what Justice Scalia said, that is NOT what the 2nd Amendment said. That only means for now we must proceed as if
that's what the 2nd Amendment says, but the reality is (if I may be so bold): Justice Scalia was wrong.
There is quite simply nothing in the 2nd Amendment that opens the door in any way to regulation -- reasonable or unreasonable. Frank points to precedent, to the fact that other rights have historically been regulated. So what? The language is clear and unequivocal: "Shall not be infringed." A regulation IS an infringement. I have pointed out before that the Founders knew the concept of reasonableness. They clearly wrote in the 4th Amendment that we are to be free from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Certainly, then, if they had intended for the RKBA to be free from "unreasonable" infringement they would have said so. But they didn't. They wrote a clear, complete, unrestricted prohibition against ALL regulation of the RKBA.
It has also been pointed out that, historically, in the "old west" there were a lot of towns that prohibited guns within city limits. Again, so what? The fact it was done and not challenged does not make it correct or proper or constitutional. It's unlikely Joe Cowpoke in 1873 Abilene had any idea that he could sue the town marshal and take his case to some bunch of old men in Washington. Joe Cowpoke may not even have known where Washington was.
Reasonable regulation is what we have to live with, but it is NOT what the 2nd Amendment says.