My long-time friend, Eugene Volokh (professor of Constitutional Law at UCLA), whom I have known for over 35 years (yep, he was 17 when we met and were both computer programmers), posted this very concise and clear explanation of the Second Amendment and what it means. The next time you are talking to some who just doesn't "get it," refer them to
this link.!
It's a good listen!
I must disagree with his statement of not unlimited.
Lower courts, federal and state, keep quoting
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) for the proposition that keeping and bearing arms only applies to the home and the second amendment is not absolute.
Let’s be clear, Scalia gave his "opinion." His opinion is not the law. Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land. The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. And, congressional law (statutory law) and treaties are only lawful if they pass constitutional muster. In
Heller, Scalia told you what the law of the land is, the “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” Then Scalia reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.” Scalia’s opinion is directed towards two sovereigns, the fed and the states, not the citizens.
Scalia, speaking for the court, specifically stated what the law of the land is. Anything else he says is his opinion, dicta. "Not absolute" is an opinion, it is not the law. The Supremes have made it clear, the 1A and 2A are absolute. Neither Congress nor the states can make a law that interferes with 1A or 2A, period. And, that is why “only in the home” was struck down because it infringed on a preexisting right.
Just like the lower courts saying the Supreme Court proclaims that: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a crime. The case they rely on is
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” in of itself is protected speech. The result of that free speech is what could be a crime. Not the speech itself. The actual sentence from
Schenck is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and
causing a panic.” The panic is the crime, the tort.
Res judicata facit ex albo nigrum; ex nigro, album; ex curvo, rectum; ex recto, curvum
Translation: A thing adjudged [the solemn judgment of a court] makes white, black; black, white; the crooked, straight; the straight, crooked.
The 2A says “shall not be infringed.” It does not say shall not be infringed except for what the Supreme Court says. The manner of carry cannot be regulated because it is an infringement.
The Supreme Court told you what the 2A says, the law of the land says it shall not be infringed.
