Originally Posted by Vincent
What about "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
." is ambiguous? "Infringe" means "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
. In other words, any and every law that restricts full access to weapons of any kind is unconstitutional. Registration, limitations, restrictions of any kind are verboten under this, our most important amendment.
It protects the rest of the amendments..
This passge is from the majority opinion of Justice Scalia (no wild eyed liberal activist) in the District of Columbia v. Heller
decison in 2008 that held the District of Columbia's virtual ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment. (this quote is from pp. 54 and 55of the linked opinion)
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”....
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
That pasage seems to indicate there a lots of restrictions on weapons possession, including banning personal ownership of the AR-15 The Joker used in Aurora, that would not violate the Second Amendment
Originally Posted by Vincent
I'm always very suspicious of these isolated crazy incidents because of who stands to gain from them.
So you think Eric Holder may be behind this to divert attention from Fast and Furious?
Keep in mind what prompted the Fast and Furious fiasco to get started
Just 200 miles from Mexico, which prohibits gun sales, the Phoenix area is home to 853 federally licensed firearms dealers. Billboards advertise volume discounts for multiple purchases.
Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich."
By 2009 the Sinaloa drug cartel had made Phoenix its gun supermarket and recruited young Americans as its designated shoppers or straw purchasers. Voth and his agents began investigating a group of buyers, some not even old enough to buy beer, whose members were plunking down as much as $20,000 in cash to purchase up to 20 semiautomatics at a time, and then delivering the weapons to others.
The fact that the Mexican drug cartels use Arizona as their one stop weapons shopping siteindicates there may be some problems taht flow from an unrestricted firerms market that could be more tightly regulated without coming close to breaching the Second Amendment.