"The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is not an absolute right and that reasonable regulations on firearms are constitutional. "
Anyone know when this decision was handed down?
“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.”
The writers of this amendment had just fought a war, to gain independence from a tyrannical government.
Anyone else see a conflict in interpretation here? Who were these “holier than thou” people who decided they could interpret the Constitution differently?
Recall that THESE are the people who decide if a law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (Not in accordance with the Constitution) The LAW (2A) was plainly written IN THE VERY CONSTITUTION that THEY took an OATH to uphold.
This is a CLEAR case of dereliction of duty.
Upon further investigation, it was the Supreme Courts’ 5 to 4 decision in 2010 (McDonald et al. v. Chicago et al.) in which the interpretation of “shall not be infringed” was meant to mean that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulations.
The Justices AGAINST the ruling were:
Alito (George W Bush appointee) Still active
Roberts (George W Bush appointee ) Still active
Scalia (Ronald Reagan appointee) Deceased
Thomas (Ronald Reagan appointee) Still active
The justices FOR the ruling were:
Stevens (Gerald Ford appointee) Retired
Breyer (Bill Clinton appointee) Retired
Kennedy (Ronald Reagan appointee) Retired
Ginsberg (Bill Clinton appointee) Deceased
Sotomayor (George H. W. Bush appointee) Still active