Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun
I don't see how the Bill of Rights is not applicable to the States. When the States signed on to the Republic, they accepted the Bill of Rights. Those rights have been specifically reserved by the People. It's like saying the federal government can't infringe on free speech, but if I want to say something I'd need the proper permit from the State government. It makes no sense.
Thats what the 14th amendment does -- officially applies the BoR to the actions of the states.
The first paragraph to the 14th Amendment essentially says that no state shall make laws that take away the rights given to the people by the Constitution. If we are to interpret the 2nd Amendment in the strictest sense of the word as we've done with the "natural born citizen" issue from Articel 2, Section 1 to the Constitution, then the states cannot restrict the people from owning firearms of any kind be it a pistol, a shotgun, a high powered riffle, or a bazooka!
However, I would hope that people and politicians would look at the issue of gun control from a more reasonable standpoint as it is clear that owning such firearms as high powered riffles or bazookas would not be prudent in today's society where the need for self-protection is concerned.
Based on the current members of the SCOTUS, I think they will strike down bans against handgun ownership, which is consistent with the bill of rights.
Strong regulation is necessary, especially in inner cities, but banning them violates our rights.
I think ultimately, this is what the SCOTUS will rule in favor of. But here again, the problem is this:
What firearms would reasonably constitute weaponry used in today's "militia" that would not violate the people's right to bear arms in the event of hostilities invoked upon the people by its government or from an enemy from outside our nation's boarders or from an individual (or individuals) who wishes to do harm to a person, his/her family or property?
Of course, the other side of this debate is:
Is it even necessary for the people to bear arms for the sake of self-protection against all enemies, foreign or domestic, considering that the very nature of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the people of the several states the right to bear arms against foreign enemies when called upon to do so by our government in forming a militia to protect the nation?
We have the National Guard to do that for us now. Thus, it could be argued that the people no longer need to take up arms for that reason. I doubt one would have any success making such an argument, but they could try. The issue with the 2nd Amendment, IMO, really isn't resticting people from buying firearms, but rather controlling what firearms they buy.
It's just not reasonable for the people to own certain types of firearms, i.e., assault riffles and such, for self-protection or even for sport (hunting or hobbyist/collectors). The very nature of a militia group would likely restrict certain weapons on the grounds of functionality alone. Therefore, I can't see the rational of allowing the people to own any type of weapon they want. But here's the rub...
If a militia would use an AK-47, would it not then be permissable for the people to have the right to own same?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the real puzzlers here:
What firearms would be deemed "reasonable" for individuals owners for self-protection or in the event one is called to help form a militia group?
Again, I think the argument could be made that the people would no longer be called upon to form a militia. We have other agencies to do that for the several states (National Guard) and the nation (Armed Services). The only reasonable question that remains in present day is "Who can own what type of firearm for what purpose?"
In answering this question, I think it's important that the states lay the foundation for gun control laws that enact tougher restrictions against (or ban the sale of same altogether) the purchase of certain types of weapons from the common, everyday consumer. I don't think you can do it at the federal level without amending or abolishing the 2nd Amendement. This is something the states must do, but perhaps with alittle clarification from the fed or the SCOTUS.