[Little Pig]

I would guess not, since DC is kind of an odd situatuon. In this case, odious as it may be, I have to side with the MA sjc. The 2nd simply constrains the fed gov; states are free to enact their own laws on top. This is a case of “if you don’t like it, move” (and so many are doing just that).

[SnakeDoctor]

Unlike some other amendments whice state “Congress shall make no law”, the 2nd amendment does not refer to the federal government alone. It says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” ... which implies that it shall not be infringed by anyone.

SnakeDoc

[Kozak]

The 2nd simply constrains the fed gov; states are free to enact their own laws on top.

Really? So the states can individually ban free speech? Seems to me any constitutional guarantee by the Feds cannot be undone by any local law.

[ronnyquest]

Since the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, it supersedes state and local law. Only those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. In this case, a part of the Constitution specifically states a person's right, just as with the First Amendment.

A law saying that my guns must be locked up and, therefore, difficult to obtain when needed infringes on my right to bear (it's keep and bear) arms.

The Second Amendment needs to be interpreted as intended, not as what it could mean.

[WackySam]

The 2nd simply constrains the fed gov; states are free to enact their own laws on top.

Dropped on your head much?

[Las Vegas Ron]

In this case, odious as it may be, I have to side with the MA sjc. The 2nd simply constrains the fed gov; states are free to enact their own laws on top.

WTF??

You forgot the sarc tag, right??

[Beagle8U]

Did you eat lots of paint chips as a child?

[bamahead]

States cannot transgress the 2nd amendment any more than they can the 1st. This is precisely why the 10th amendment basically procliams that ‘rights not enumerated above’ are left to the states. The 2nd is most decidedly enumerated above.

By your logic, states could enact speech codes ‘on-top’ of the 1st amendment.

Not how it works, bub.

[Taxman]

I’d suggest you give some serious thought to your statement.

The second amendment clearly states that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That phrase is inclusive — local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations may not infringe on our God given right to bear arms so as to protect ourselves and our families.

[Clump]

Your post reminds me of people that had one year of law scho or worse, a criminal justice degree, and they spout the Constitution and law from the hip. States may extend greater rights than the US constitution but never less. Rule of thumb to remember.

[Sloth]

I have to side with the MA sjc. The 2nd simply constrains the fed gov; states are free to enact their own laws on top

Uh, no. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." -- Amendment 14.