JALLEN wrote:It is very hard, almost impossible, to pass a gun control law without running into the problem of "infringing."
The only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that has made sense to me is that "keep and bear" limits the Constitutional protection to arms that can be borne, carried, individually. This excludes bombs, explosives, battleships, shoulder fired missiles, stealth bombers, etc.
As it stands now, someone convicted of a felony of any kind may not own or possess a firearm, whether it is a Mafia hit man or Martha Stewart.
The present interpretation seems to exclude a flat ban on possession by otherwise law abiding citizens, but so far the kind of restrictions some states have enacted, California for example, are apparently OK. That is the danger. All of those type regulations, magazine capacity, types of weapons, length of barrels, suppressors, restrictions on carry, whether open or concealed,"infringe." I don't think we ought to be a party to aiding and abetting infringement.
You have to remember that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment lived in a world where it was perfectly acceptable for private citizens to own a field howitzer......if they had enough money to buy one. There was no law against it. In the context of 18th century english, the term "well-regulated" speaks to a
logistical regulation (which we would call "standardization" today) between the militia and the state/national military, so that the militia would have access to and be armed with weapons in the same caliber and type as the military used. This would have necessarily included everything from a cutlass to a cannon to a 4-masted frigate with 50 cannon. Private citizens often bought gunpowder by the barrel full, and private citizens and local militia members stored powder in bulk in village magazines at the edge of town. In that context, personal budgetary constraints would be the only limiting factor in a modern American's ability to purchase anything from a switchblade to a 30mm Bushmaster cannon to an A10 Warthog with a full payload, to 500 lb of C4. The "shot that was heard around the world" was fired in defense of just such a village magazine when the redcoats marched on Lexington/Concord to confiscate the privately owned and held powder and weapons stores owned by the local militia members.
THAT is the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Now realistically, there aren't more than a small handful of individuals on the planet who could afford to develop and build their own nuclear bombs, and they would be likely viewed as an existential threat to most of the world's nations and dealt with accordingly. And even if Bill Gates could afford to build one or two nukes, he couldn't afford to build 1000 of them, or store them and keep them in deployable condition. Ditto the ability to
deliver nukes. Realistically, it is outside the capability of any one individual to build a nuclear arsenal, or an aircraft carrier, etc., etc., so whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects those things as a right also is merely an example of Reductio ad absurdum.
The language used in the writing of the Constitution was very deliberately scaled to the reading level of an average literate person. It has no hidden meanings. It says what it says, without reservation or purpose of evasion or trickery. "Shall not be infringed" means nothing more and nothing less than "shall not be infringed." "Keep and bear" means nothing more and nothing less than "own and carry." It goes without saying that I cannot carry a field howitzer, but there is no reason under the 2nd Amendment to infringe my right two spend my money on one and own it if I want to.
https://www.google.com/search?q=definit ... e&ie=UTF-8
infringed past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
Verb
1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
This is very plain to me. Yes, our Congress, which has no regard for the Constitution's original intent has passed bills which violate this fundamental principle. Presidents who have had no regard for the Constitution's original intent have signed these bills which violate this fundamental principle into law. And worse yet, SCOTUS has, on occasion upheld as "constitutional" these laws when challenged, in addition to inventing rights from the thin air of penumbras and emanations. All of this is legal. NONE OF IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
In any case, the 2nd Amendment does not limit itself to man portable weapons. If that were so, the founders who were well aware of weapons which were NOT man-portable, and who were also aware that some of these non-man-portable weapons were in private hands,
would have written it into the Constitution if it were their intent to limit the 2nd to man-portable weapons.
The question isn't really "what limits does the Constitution set on my right to keep and bear arms?" The real question is "how long are we going to let government get away with violating it?"