03-24-2020, 05:36 PM
It also fails because of the plain language of the Constitution. In the 10th Amendment:
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.
The construction of this Amendment shows perfectly that 3 entities are in view: the United States (the federal government), the States (respectively) (ie, individual states as components of the country), or to the people.
Powers given to the States differ from rights to the people. Now the 2A states that the "right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." therefore, it confers protection to a right held by individual people, and specifically, not to "the States respectively". And no federal law can overturn that, it would take an amendment to the Constitution to change that.
It does NOT say, "the right of the States respectively to keep and bear arms, etc etc..."
It does say, "... the right of the People..."
No federal law concerning what or how a "national" guard could or should be used (let alone whether that NG even exists or not...) can contravene this constitutional right possessed by individuals. Federal law cannot trump the Constitution. It could conceivably add to or take advantage of, such individual ownership (keep and bear) but it cannot contradict it.
I have written on this before and I acknowledge that some on here may not agree, which is fine, but I believe the wording of the Constitution is both plain and clear in that 3 separate entities are in view. And, the declarative right of the 2A states that very clearly, that the people can keep and bear, People, as opposed to States (respectively) and as opposed to the US federal government. Only a contortionist would interpret this otherwise, in my opinion.
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.
The construction of this Amendment shows perfectly that 3 entities are in view: the United States (the federal government), the States (respectively) (ie, individual states as components of the country), or to the people.
Powers given to the States differ from rights to the people. Now the 2A states that the "right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." therefore, it confers protection to a right held by individual people, and specifically, not to "the States respectively". And no federal law can overturn that, it would take an amendment to the Constitution to change that.
It does NOT say, "the right of the States respectively to keep and bear arms, etc etc..."
It does say, "... the right of the People..."
No federal law concerning what or how a "national" guard could or should be used (let alone whether that NG even exists or not...) can contravene this constitutional right possessed by individuals. Federal law cannot trump the Constitution. It could conceivably add to or take advantage of, such individual ownership (keep and bear) but it cannot contradict it.
I have written on this before and I acknowledge that some on here may not agree, which is fine, but I believe the wording of the Constitution is both plain and clear in that 3 separate entities are in view. And, the declarative right of the 2A states that very clearly, that the people can keep and bear, People, as opposed to States (respectively) and as opposed to the US federal government. Only a contortionist would interpret this otherwise, in my opinion.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"