Every citizen in the United States are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms. It is when a person decides to break a law of the States is when they give up their rights. Whether the particular law broken should warrant denying the felon their 2A or not is where this discussion should be.
In Katrina, civil rights were suspended due to it being an emergency situation and under Marshall law. If the civil authorities over stepped their position then because of the 2A, you would have something to revolt with which is the purpose of the 2A.
If I don't have a conviction, no restrictive disabilities and a citizen of the U.S., I do have right to own a firearm. It is when people start looking treating it like a privilege is when that right is threatened. There are no exams or competency tests or license to owning a firearm and there should be none.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 629Deerslayer
This won't be popular but here goes. I don't think there is any "individual right" to own firearms. It is a privilege that can be and is restricted by various laws. It has been this way throughout our nations history. The 2nd Ammendment refers to a "community right" (think National Guard) and has historically been interpreted that way by the courts.
|
The 2A was written to protect the People from a corrupt or despotic government. If the founding fathers were referring to the formation of the National Guard, then they would have written it as such. The US was designed and built to divide governmental powers between the State and National (Federal) for a purpose which are outside of this discussion. But the US Armed Forces are under the command of the Federal government and the National Guard is under the command of the State. The 2A is for any corrupt government, State or Federal.
Edit: I apologize to NFrameFred. It was not his quote but responding to 629Deerslayer.
Linear Mode
