Which part of the constitution makes gun laws unconstitutional?

Question

The second amendment protects our rights to a WELL REGULATED militia. Which part of that makes gun laws unconstitutional? And do you know the definition of REGULATION?

bregweidd, it doesn't even say ANYTHING about guns! How about YOU read it again!

oh, and don;t get me wrong, I am all for gun ownership...as well as owner accountability, safety classes like driving a car, and a waiting period.

I don;t know what to say to those of you who claim that everyone who is pro gun SUPPORTS gun laws. No, they don;t. SOrry if you never heard of that, it exists. Just look the next time the NRA has a demonstration...it usually happens right around the time that laws are apssed...and they head up the opposition. In fact, i would have more respect for them if they spearheaded the law writing...and those laws could better reflect the constitution.

MEathook, do you remember Columbine? The Nra had a great turnout right after that..claiming that guns should have LESS control, so the students could carry them too...same thing happened after VT. Don;t assume only one side expolits...but the gun control people actually had an argument. Also, I need a link suporting that England has a higher crime rate than the US. I won;t hold my breath (and I gave you a thumbs up, because that was a great answer...just a couple of points to make)

CB, according to punctuation, a statment sepaprted by a comma relates directly to the pre comma portion. There is a very good reason that these statements were not separated either by amendment, or 'but or and' or simply by a period. and the supreme court supports this...gun laws EXIST, no matter how much opposition.

Answer 1

Only the very fringe extremists say that there should be absolutely NO regulation of guns ownership. Even the NRA endorced the background check system (albeit, AFTER a more onerous one was put in place).

I don't want to start taking rights out of the constitution because it is a dangerous precedent and some rights that I enjoy may be taken out as a result. BUT, there are NO constitutional rights which are totally free of restriction.

We have freedom of speech, but you cannot incite a riot.

We have freedom of religion, but you cannot deny your child medical care for religious reasons or conduct ritualistic human sacrafices to God.

We have freedom of the Press, but newspapers cannot libel people.

So, IMO, there is no reason to expect the ownership of guns to be without some reasonable level of regulation.

Answer 2

Much has already been written about both the construction of the sentence comprising the Second Amendment and the meaning of the words and terms used.

Obviously a lot of controversy has been associated with this amendment. Looking back on the drafting history and statements made at the time also sheds light on the interpretation.

I do not believe, as some do, that this right only applies to state militias, such as the National Guard - again because of the terms used and the sentence construction.

I think there are very few people who favor absolutely no regulation of this right, just as there are regulations limits to the First Amendment - slander, obscenity, etc.

Then again, if one's position is that something may be regulated unless there is express and clear authority in the Constitution prohibiting it, defense of abortion on demand and other issues becomes much more difficult. (If one were to reply that the Supreme Court has spoken and settled the law on this issue, through Roe v Wade, then I suppose one would have to accept the recent partial-birth abortion decision, and any further restrictions that come down, as well. I have no problem in saying the Supreme Court gets it wrong sometimes.)

Answer 3

The second ammendment merely mentions the necessity for a well regulated militia. The statements is that: "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That is the statement and the rule. Nothing about the first part of the sentence and mentioning the militia makes this rule unclear or limits this statement.

The historical definition of "militia" may differ from the modern definition. The same might be true for the term "regulated". Like any other law there are written opinions and clarifications to this rule by the writers of the Constitution. The intent of the rule cannot be separated from these written opinions and deciphered only from the text because the meanings of words change over time and it is necessary to provide clarification.

Good luck and enjoy your freedom, whether it's to own a gun or to write your honest opinion on the internet.

Answer 4

I think most second amendment supporters agree with things like background checks, etc... Most real gun supporters believe in responsible gun ownership. What we don't agree with is when gun control loons use a terrible tragedy like VA Tech to call for gun control laws like in England or Australia where the violent crime rates are much higher than in the US. Where they call for laws that will take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens and yet have no effect on those who have or use illegal guns.

Edit - I had to rethink this a little. The text of the amendment is, "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."

It states the reason that people have the right to bear arms is in the necessity that our country may need to defend itself. It does not state that there needs to be regulated guns, but rather if a militia is required that it be regulated. Maybe they understood the need to control para-military organizations back then. They did not want gangs of armed hooligans roaming the countryside raping and pillaging in the name of militia protection.

Answer 5

The Amendment says you may own a gun, or any normal weapon, but the States can limit where you use it or have it. Think back to the Wild West days, when US Marshals can order cowboys to check their guns before entering town. Try bringing a gun into Cowboy Stadium in Texas. There are two main schools of thought, that the Amendment was designed for the States, or was for individuals. The latest Supreme Court case, DC vs Heller (2008) also stated that the right was not absolute. That dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned.

Answer 6

Your "reading" of the second amendment is wrong.

I am not sure it you are trying to confuse the issue intentionally or you are just completely lost on the text. If the later is the case I am sure many of the responses here will help you out.

The regulation of the militia, as you are putting it, has nothing to do with the latter portion of the sentence which clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

You should consider the phrasing relating to a regulated militia only. There is a reason the founding fathers spent so much time parsing the words that went into the Bill of Rights.

Thank God that Supreme court does not share your view. Blurring the text of the Constitution is a very dangerous thing.

Edit- Focusing on punctuation in this case is a completely errant path. The various versions of the Bill of Rights had different punctuation. Instead look at the words. They speak for themselves.

In no way, shape or form did I ever say that all laws regarding guns would be unconstitutional. I did say that the basis for which you claim that they are propagated is inherently flawed, which is absolutely true. The justification for the constitutionality of gun laws is not based in the argument you are attempting to make.

The basis for such restrictions are instead rooted in what is known in the legal world as the rational basis test. Federal gun laws are propagated and enforced via the commerce clause and the restrictions come into effect via the fifth amendment and its insistence on due process of law. To date the argument claiming that regulation of personal gun ownership is permitted because of the regulation of the militia has failed. See Lewis v. US.

Answer 7

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.

The second amendment gives " the people " the right to bear arms. Some regulatory gun laws are unconstitutional , some are not. Its all a matter of interpretation.

Answer 8

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares a well regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits Congress from infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

There has never once been a gun control law passed that resulted in lower instances of theft, violent crime or murder. Criminals don't follow laws, and will have guns regardless.

Answer 9

The Second Amendment doesn't prohibit sensible regulation of firearms, anymore than the First prohibits, to take the classic example, a law against crying "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Automatic weapons, for example, are extremely difficult and costly to obtain legally. Despite the movies, I have never heard of a criminal case where an automatic weapon obtained legally was used. I don't think the FBI even bothers to keep statistics on this anymore, as there are no cases.

Answer 10

You're right, it does say "arms".
In those days they had mussel loaders, now they have tanks. I want a tank!
Gun laws to take the guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill are fine with just about everyone. Gun laws that take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is WRONG!
I believe in the second amendment. I want to be a part of that well regulated militia if we have to go up against an enemy, foreign or domestic!!