The Supreme Court has decided to review whether “whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment“.
This could be good, because this could lead to a lessening of strict gun control laws in some states that are not currently 2nd amendment friendly.
It could be bad, because it could end up that these laws are actually upheld. But that would mean that the Supremes have to reverse themselves regarding Heller.
Precedent setting, either way.
On the one hand, I believe in the 2nd amendment. I am a strict constitutionalist, therefore the 2nd amendment means just what it says….”shall not be infringed” means just that. I do not believe that any license is needed to carry, either concealed or openly, nor to possess any “arm”. Does that mean full automatic firearms and RPG’s should be legal? Yes. Sawed off shotguns? Yes. Arms are, after all, arms. Who gets to limit them? If they are limited, we are violating the part about “shall not be infringed”. While the original “arms” referred to the muskets and such that were the technology of the day, there were no limits placed then, no limits as to what kind, nor how many “arms” . “shall not be infringed”. Enough said.
On the other hand, there is that pesky 10th amendment. States rights and all that. Just in case you need a refresher, it reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”.
Does the 2nd trump the 10th? We shall see. One could argue that the 2nd is came 2nd, as a part of the original Constitution, and the 10th was, IIRC, added later. You also have the Articles of Confederation…”Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States”.
I dunno, this will be interesting though. Let’s see how the spin ges in non 2nd amendment states. Should be interesting arguments from the east coast folks, and from Illinois, and especially from the PRK (People’s Republik of Kalifornia)…
One issue is the viewpoint of the constitution. I see it as a limiter for government, not a document bestowing rights to the “people”. Others see it as giving rights to the “people”, not a limit to what government can do.
I’m betting that things will go for more 2nd amendment rights. Eventually. Someday.