The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"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."

There is no mention of the manufacture or sales of firearms.

Hence, there is no constitutionally protected right to manufacture or sell guns.

Congress has a great deal of latitude and discretion regarding the exercise of governmental authority and responsibility in the regulation of the manufacture and sales of  firearms.

There is a clear overriding "state interest" in the Congressional exercise of such authority.

State Interest:

"A broad term for any matter of public concern that is addressed by a government in law or policy.

State legislatures pass laws to address matters of public interest and concern. A law that sets speed limits on public highways expresses an interest in protecting public safety. A statute that requires high school students to pass competency examinations before being allowed to graduate advances the state's interest in having an educated citizenry.

Although the state may have a legitimate interest in public safety, public health, or an array of other issues, a law that advances a state interest may also intrude on important constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has devised standards of review that govern how a state interest will be constitutionally evaluated.

When a law affects a constitutionally protected interest, the law must meet the Rational Basis Test. This test requires that the law be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. For example, a state law that prohibits a person from selling insurance without a license deprives people of their right to make contracts freely. Yet the law will be upheld because it is a rational means of advancing the state interest in protecting persons from fraudulent or unscrupulous insurance agents. Most laws that are challenged on this basis are upheld, as there is usually some type of reasonable relation between the state interest and the way the law seeks to advance that interest.

When a law or policy affects a fundamental constitutional right, such as the right to vote or the right to privacy, the Strict Scrutiny test will be applied. This test requires the state to advance a compelling state interest to justify the law or policy. Strict scrutiny places a heavy burden on the state. For example, in roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), the state interest in protecting unborn children was not compelling enough to overcome a woman's right to privacy. When the state interest is not sufficiently compelling, the law is struck down as unconstitutional."

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Interest

Special Black History note:

The Second Amendment argument against black citizenship:

"In the Dred Scott decision, the opinion of the court stated that if African Americans were considered U.S. citizens, "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right...to keep and carry arms wherever they went."[177]"

In the Dred Scott opinion the Court "held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen..."

This was the decision in which Chief Justice Taney declared that: "the black man had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."  -----Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Views: 201

Comment by alsoknownas on February 23, 2018 at 11:28am

Nor does it seem to accord ownership of guns to those who are not in a militia.

Comment by Ron Powell on February 23, 2018 at 11:38am

@AKA;  See edit and update of this post...

Thanks 

Comment by J.P. Hart on February 23, 2018 at 11:59am

I'd googled 'well regulated militia' at midnight 14-15 FEB 2018 and attempted to read through Supreme Court 'cisions or adjudications reinforcing the rhetoric of the 

National Repeaters Association.

Whatever happened to that image of the homicidal maniac in the Make America Grope Again cap and mask?

As far as generational unity (forward progress: too little, too late, too much fear & hate) goes, we're still scavenging landmines in Laos.

What r we: 7+ Billion against the wind, older every midnight?

The Badger State of late had an interesting intervention collaring: perpetrator Joe Jakubowski

host.madison.com/...jakubowski-sentenced.../article_fc43b8e7-8835-5058-9913-c54d...

Dec 21, 2017 - Joseph Jakubowski, 33, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge William Conley at the federal courthouse in Madison for stealing 18 firearms and two silencers from a Janesville gun shop and illegally possessing guns because he is a felon. ... During his trial, Jakubowski admitted on the ...

Comment by Ron Powell on February 23, 2018 at 12:08pm

@JPH;

Comment by J.P. Hart on February 23, 2018 at 12:31pm

Pinocchio of the United States/tell me the strings on his paws are/imaginary/no callouses do I see

catch 'ya later at the HO-DOWN!

Comment by Ron Powell on February 23, 2018 at 1:08pm

@AKA;

"State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the "individual rights" model, which holds that individuals hold the right to bear arms, and the "collective rights" model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership. The "collective rights" model has been rejected by the Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_Stat...

Comment by alsoknownas on February 23, 2018 at 1:34pm

Ron Powell,

Thanks for the additional diligence and research which saves me from feeling I need to join a group.

Comment by Tom Cordle on February 23, 2018 at 1:43pm

Any discussion about the Second Amendment ought to begin at the beginning, that is to say with the Declaration of Independence, wherein life comes before liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – assuming an individual believes possessing assault weapons is necessary to their happiness – comes in last.

The other document that applies is the Preamble to the Constitution, wherein the prime directives for the government itself are spelled out. Whatever is specified in the Constitution and Amendments follows from those prime directives. And what are those prime directives? To provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

Thus, just as night follows day, if an individual's assumed right to bear weapons of war does not promote the common defense and promote the general welfare – a demonstrable fact, given the overwhelming statistical information available, then that individual right becomes secondary to the prime directives. And thus, it is the sworn duty of those who govern to regulate that individual right to whatever extent necessary to ensure the prime directives.

Case closed.

Comment by Ron Powell on February 23, 2018 at 2:04pm

@TC; "And thus, it is the sworn duty of those who govern to regulate that individual right to whatever extent necessary to ensure the prime directives."

It isn't quite that simple.

I don't disagree with your conclusion. However, your response wouldn't get you a passing score on a Constitutional Law quiz or a bar exam.

Your "prime directives" are not "law"....Much as the language is cited for the purposes of arguing "intent", The Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution establish neither principle nor precedent for the purpose of legal argumentation. 

Comment by Tom Cordle on February 23, 2018 at 8:22pm

I'm fully aware that the Declaration and the Preamble do not have the force of "law", but it strikes me to dismiss them on a technicality, as some do, is specious. Both statements justify what follows from them. As I've argued here and elsewhere, you can't very well argue – at least not honestly – that what follows from the predicate somehow negates the predicate. Indeed, logic dictates that the predicate is in a sense, superior to what flows from that predicate.

Comment

You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon

NEW BLOG POSTS

The Boy Who Cried Wolf

Posted by Rodney Roe on September 18, 2018 at 12:01pm 1 Comment

Not The First Time

Posted by Doc Vega on September 17, 2018 at 10:00am 0 Comments

Deep Thoughts on Global Government

Posted by Doc Vega on September 15, 2018 at 2:00pm 11 Comments

Deep Thoughts For A Saturday

Posted by Doc Vega on September 15, 2018 at 1:30pm 2 Comments

In The Dark

Posted by Doc Vega on September 15, 2018 at 11:18am 6 Comments

Embarrassed by my vote

Posted by koshersalaami on September 14, 2018 at 7:25am 19 Comments

© 2018   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service