They chose to use the phrase "The People" in 5 of the 10 Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.
It's amazing that "Experts" can claim that the phrase The People can MEAN the THE PEOPLE in the other 4, but that same phrase has to mean "The State" only in the Second Amendment.
For reference:
1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
2: 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.
4: The right of THE PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by THE PEOPLE .
10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to THE PEOPLE .
"More guns leads to more gun violence," she said."
Then why, if we have the greatest number of guns per capita, don't we have the highest rate of violence per capita? Why is it that Vermont, which has no restrictions other than federal gun laws has one of the lowest per capita violence rates in the US? Why is it that NO scientifically reliable and valid study has been able to prove even a medium correlation between more guns and more violence?
"New York's criminal justice coordinator, John Feinblatt, said a Supreme Court decision would not affect the city's laws since the state does not have an outright handgun ban like Washington. And CeaseFire Maryland, which advocates tough gun laws, said the state's gun regulations could pass muster even if the high court agreed Washington's law is unconstitutional."
These people are wayyy too complacent. There is a large difference between shouting fire in a crowded theater(or, in the case of guns, firing randomly into the air) or incitement to riot(pointing your gun at random people on the street) and the vast majority of current gun laws. Moreover, the 2nd amendment has the bluntest and strongest language of any of the 10 amendments. Shall not be infringed is pretty damned explicit
"courts have generally interpreted the amendment to protect only the collective right of states to maintain militias. If it takes the case, the high court could issue its first direct ruling on the Second Amendment in 70 years, solidifying some of the nation's toughest gun laws or exposing them to a torrent of new challenges."
I'm calling BS, just because you get a bunch of new opinions formed in the 1900's that sprout up with a brand spanking new interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not mean it generally happened. In point of fact, basically every case before 1900 implicitly notes that it is very very much an individual right. Note the Dred Scott case, which while an extremely crappy reflection of the times, was in fact damned good case law at the time.
ABC 7 News to leave comments on news stories.