Compare and contrast:
“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.” with “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.”
The First is a prohibition on Congress (i.e. the federal government) to not infringe religious freedom; free speech rights, and peaceable assembly; it does NOT prohibit any of the listed freedoms/rights from infringement by any other entity, public or private.
The Second is an absolute statement of an uninfringable individual right, PERIOD. NO public or private entity has authority to infringe the right; though one can certainly ban some behaviors with regard to exercise of it, such as murder, dueling, armed robbery, etc.
Now, if we could just convince the courts & Congress to enforce....
Then we come to another absolute right, regardless of jurisdiction, public or private:
“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.”
As to this particular issue, regardless of some wrong-headed court precedents, one’s vehicle is part of one’s “effects”, so the Fourth Amendment would apply, since it would be unreasonable to allow the property owner to search, or cause to be searched, the locked vehicle for a possible concealed/hidden weapon.
No law should be necessary —and neither should a “permit” or “license” be necessary— to peaceably exercise an absolute right.
“The Second (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed) is an absolute statement of an uninfringable individual right, PERIOD. NO public or private entity has authority to infringe the right; though one can certainly ban some behaviors with regard to exercise of it, such as murder, dueling, armed robbery, etc.”
True enough. But what is the scope of that right? What are it’s boundaries? What is its extent? Because anything beyond that scope and extent, beyond those boundaries, may be subject to so called infringement.
Look at the 15th Amendment. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged…” The structure is the same as “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. But there are bounds on “The right of citizens of the United States to vote”. Denial or infringement beyond those bounds may be done.
For instance, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote” does not in and of itself include participation of a citizen of one district in a vote taken in another district. Nor can a citizen demand a matter be voted on, particularly a private matter, just because the citizen has a right to vote.
The question of whether the uninfringable individual right stated in the Second Amendment extends to taking a gun within the bounds of real property when the real property owner objects has not been adequately addressed.
The conflict, if any, between what an individual would claim based on the right to keep and bear arms and another individual would claim based on property rights (whatever they are) has not been resolved.