You can't have it both ways. If the laws we have are contrary to the Constitution, then enforcing them isn't in conformance with the Constitution.
I think we are pretty much in agreement. I think the Second Amendment says what it says, and I know what the word "infringe" means. A regulation IS an infringement, and all the fancy words in the dictionary can't change that. Fundamentally, the concept of having to pay for a license (or permit) to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right is inherently flawed and, in my layman's opinion, blatantly unconstitutional. But, since the nine jurists in black robes in that fancy building in Washington don't seem to agree with me, my opinion doesn't count for much.
I still hope we may, some day, get back to the Constitution and eliminate the need for permits altogether. However, I don't expect to see that happen in my lifetime. In the interim, universal reciprocity would be a good first step toward rolling back some of the more restrictive (and more ridiculous) anti-gun laws around the country.
Of course, just as I know what the word "infringe" means, I also know what "arms" means ... and what it meant to the old guys who wrote that antiquated Constitution thing. I'm sure some of our members are already well familiar with what Tench Coxe wrote around the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. For those who don't know what I'm talking about
:
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords
and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe
"Every terrible implement of the soldier ..."
That's what the Founders had in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights. The Founders didn't trust governments with standing armies. The intention was for "the People" (that's us) to be armed well enough that no army could overcome us. That means we should be allowed to own and use not just bolt action rifles, revolvers, and semi-auto rifles and handguns, we should be allowed to own machine guns, cannons, mortars, howitzers ... yes, if you can afford it, you should be legally allowed to own your own F15, complete with Sidewinder missiles.
But ... we are where we are, and it took more than 200 years for things to reach this state. We have to undertake the reversal incrementally -- we can't expect to open used F-15 dealerships on every block immediately.
As to letting the states prevail ... that's great if you live in a free state. I don't. I would welcome the federal government telling my state that its laws are void because they are in violation of the Constitution. (Actually, my state's laws are in violation of our own, state constitution, too. But the judges are appointed by the governor, and I won't mention which party my governor belongs to.)
Bookmarks