No, I got you. You were clear.
I believe this is one of those cases where both the states and the Federal government share competency.
Got ya. I would disagree with the sharing of competancy, as I''l explain in the next part
This stems primarily from the fact that I lean towards anti-federalism, the principle that I believe that teh bill of rights was created from.
I see the bill of rights, and especially the second amendment, as limiting federal authority. While I believe that the rights explicitly mentioned in the bill of rights are rights that everyone should have, I also believe that they firmly limit the federal govenrment from having any say whatsoever on those matters.
I believe the bill of rights limitted the scope of the federal government in order to try and prevent much of what we see today in regards to loss of freedoms.
I also believe that it was done in order to prevent the "centralzation" of government with the federal authority.
The wording of the second ammendment is such that I bleive it to be an individual right as well as something that can only fall within the power of the states to regulate.
"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."
I don't feel that the wording was used in order to make it so that only those within the militia can be eligible for that right, I believe that wording was chosen to prevent the federal governemnt from saying how the states should regulate their own militias.
I feel that it actually includes two rights within it.
The individual right to bear arms.
And the States' rights to regulate their own militias.
To me, given the anti-federalist nature of the BoR, it appears that there is not equal power to exclude certain dangerous entities from bearing arms. It falls solely within the rights of each state.
I think the wording also excludes the rights of the States from infringing upon this right for any reason other than being deemed psychologically ineligible for militia duty, by derangement or felonious action.
But that does not mean that they are to be forced to do so.
It is within the state's right to not choose this option.
I believe that it is in the best interest of each state to do so, but I do not think the federal authirty has the right to control the states in this fashion.
Again, this is given the nature of the BoR and how they initially came to be.
I do not think that the individual state has a right to infringe upon any of the rights inherent in the BoR, but I do think that the wording of the second is such that it grants them the ability to regulate their militia as they see fit. This can include disqualifying person's for militia elligibility on the basis of their psychological fitness for duty.