Does The Bill of Rights protect citizens from any type of gun control?

Answer 1

No, but the current reading of the second amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" ensures that in some cases the public has a right to "bear arms."

The argument against this is that the People is the collective in that the country has the right to a military, not individuals with guns.

Answer 2

Not entirely.

The second and ninth amendments are what allow US citizens to own guns. Actually, the second amendment only allows guns to be owned to form an effective militia, but since that isn't needed anymore, it's actually the ninth amendment that allows guns to be owned, since it is a rule for interpreting the bill of rights and constitution and equates to "Any right granted to a citizen by the constitution cannot be taken away by act of government."

However other laws already limit gun control. Convicted felons cannot own a gun, nor can persons under the legal age, nor can persons with severe mental illness. Automatic firearms are not permitted for use or ownership of the general public, and certain high power weapons are subject to stricter gun control legislation.

In the UK, before the near complete ban on handguns, the laws were in some ways a lot stricter. Anyone could apply to have a firearms license, but the law permits the police to run extensive background checks on the owner prior to issuing the permit and there are very strong rules on locking the weapons away, not keep it loaded, etc.
That all ended after the Dunblane school shooting, which prompted changes to ban all handguns. In effect, the public was given an option to provide a good reason why they should be allowed to keep handguns and they couldn't think of one.
Shotguns are still permitted, subject to the above rules, for hunting.

Answer 3

convinced. the 2d change states: "A properly regulated military, being mandatory to the protection of a loose state, the right of the individuals to save and bear palms, shall not be infringed." word the note 'infringed'. The dictionary defines infringe as, Infringe –verb (used with merchandise) a million. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule. hence any regulation that restricts regulation-ABIDING voters from possessing any form of firearm is prohibited. yet many states deny get proper of entry to to "undesirable" and "scary" guns, thoroughly ignoring the structure. it really is magnificent how a lot of people protest and strive against to the bone for his or her 1st change rights and 4th-9th (that are all about courtroom and legal concerns) yet thoroughly push aside the 2d change it truly is violated actually wide-spread. And to those who say the 2d change is solely for Militias, you're incorrect. It does take care of citizen's rights to style militias AND human being firearm rights. The invoice of rights is about persons not states. States do not have the right to loose Speech, loose faith and vicious and unusual Punishment, the guy does.

Answer 4

The following is more to the point.

This is a topic of considerable debate. In modern usage, the expression "bear arms" is usually considered synonymous with the phrase "have or carry firearms".

Although the term 'arms' means firearms most commonly, laws and statutes also usually define other types of weapons, such as swords, knives, and other similar objects, to be arms as well.

Some people believe that in earlier times the expression "bear arms" had a different meaning. One study has found " ...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the 'bear arms' expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service" [1]

Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight". This study casts doubt in the minds of some on the modern definition of 'bear arms' to mean 'carry firearms'.

Still, to others, the modern definition has always been the common definition. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated in 2001 that:

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service." [2]

Answer 5

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, means people have the right to own guns.

Answer 6

No, it protects their right to form an armed militia.

Answer 7

not in any way

Answer 8

I DONT KNOW, BUT I HOPE NOT