Originally Posted by gc70
So the Second Amendment itself is not limited, it is just subject to ancillary regulations. That sound like a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Without meaningful difference? Not at all.
Words have meaning. The 2A guarantees a right to "keep" and "bear" arms. Do you see anything at all in the 2A about guaranteeing you a RIGHT to shoot up your neighbor's house?
That's just the base language. Then we fast forward to Heller
and Justice Scalia's majority decision, in which he wrote:
Originally Posted by Scalia
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
There are several states right now where we can carry sidearms with no permit, open or concealed. These are the so-called "Constitutional carry" states: Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and __?__. Without doing any research at all, I am absolutely certain that in all of those states, despite your having an absolute right to pack iron, it is against the law to USE that firearm to rob a bank, to threaten someone you think cut you off in traffic, to commit murder ... or to shoot up your neighbor's house.
How are the laws prohibiting such anti-social behaviors in any way a restriction (an "infringement") on your right to bear arms? Are you seriously arguing that the 2A guarantees us a right to commit armed robbery and murder?