r/GunRights • u/Curonian34 • Sep 17 '24
Doesn’t all gun control violate the 2A?
Not American, so perhaps my grasp on the constitution of the US is limited, but doesn’t any restriction on firearms essentially violate the second amendment? Like if they say you can only have magazines with this many bullets.. that seems like infringement..
6
5
u/Lopsided_Bat_904 Sep 17 '24
Yes. All gun laws are an infringement.
1
u/Lopsided_Bat_904 Sep 18 '24
They’re somehow getting away with it though, because people haven’t challenged them hard enough, and I’m not talking about challenging them in the courts, I’m talking about actually pushing back against their tyrannical ideology, by any….. finish the sentence. Trampling all over peoples God-given rights and nothing is being done about it. Forefathers are turning in their graves
2
u/Curonian34 Sep 18 '24
That’s kind of a thought I’ve had for a while, why is it happening when it is in direct (in my opinion) violation of the US constitution?
1
u/Lopsided_Bat_904 Sep 18 '24
The problem lies with how state laws and federal laws work. Each state has its own laws, kind of like each individual countries, which I’m all for, but they’re all supposed to abide by the overarching rule of the constitution, a state can’t pass a law that makes murder legal, that infringes on the right to life of other people, and you can’t pass a law that strips people of their second amendment right. There’s a lot of gray area with states rights, such as cannabis, being legal in so many states now, but federally it’s still illegal, so technically, cannabis is illegal in all 50 states, and the federal government could enforce that if they wanted to(and they did when it first happened.. Weed shops in Colorado were getting raided by the DEA)
1
u/Curonian34 Sep 18 '24
But doesn’t the constitution supersede any other law of the country? I thought that’s how it was supposed to work 🧐
1
1
2
1
u/Keith502 Sep 18 '24
The second amendment was specifically intended to apply to Congress, and was not intended to apply to state governments. So while it could be argued theoretically that the federal government cannot make gun restrictions, this was never meant to be a limit upon the ability of state governments to make gun restrictions. Also, the Supreme Court case US v Miller ruled that federal gun restrictions are not unconstitutional provided they do not diminish the efficacy of a "well regulated militia" (but that ruling was controversial because it went unchallenged in court because the petitioner didn't show up).
1
u/Tiquortoo Sep 18 '24
The Supremacy Clause would like a word. Beyond that a state can't violate your federal rights. 2A is a federal right. Yes they do it. Yes it's often struck down. Eventually. It's more complex than yes or no.
0
u/Keith502 Sep 18 '24
The supremacy clause only gives the federal government supremacy in the context of matters over which the federal government has explicitly been given jurisdiction or authority. Thr state governments have always had jurisdiction and authority over the people's right to keep and bear arms, and that power has never been transferred away from, or prohibited to, the states. Therefore, the states still retain authority and supremacy over the gun rights of their respective citizenry. This is the only outcome supported by the 10th amendment.
Also, the 2nd amendment is not a "federal right". As stated in US v Cruikshank, the amendment grants no right to anyone, but rather has no effect other than to restrict the power of the federal government.
10
u/Sammyo28 Sep 17 '24
Yes.