Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
I'm pretty much the only one that argues that, actually. But regardless, the statement Scalia (who tends to rule conservatively for whatever reason) made is quite clear and flies in the face of what most gun proponents claim.
|
Quote:
“Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
|
That's pretty clear.
As for "flying in the face of what most gun proponents claim" you're also irrevocably wrong. No reasonable gun owner believes that it is "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
I don't think that recently convicted felons should own firearms. I don't think that mentally ill individuals should own firearms. I don't think that firearms should be allowed in federal buildings. I don't think that fully automatic weapons should be available to anyone but an active-duty military personnel.
Any reasonable gun owner knows that it should be subject to some regulation.