As the tired old analogy that free speech doesn't give one the right to shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater means that free speech can be regulated, for better or worse (worse IMHO) the Supreme Court ruled in Heller v DC that the 2nd Amendment is not an 'absolute' right and can also be regulated.
Likewise, the manner in which the 2nd Amendment is exercised can also be regulated, both with regards to concealment and with regards to what sort of weapon may be kept and borne.
As the tired old analogy that free speech doesn’t give one the right to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater means that free speech can be regulated, that regulation cannot include licensing tongues, arrest for speaking (at all) without a permit, limiting amplification capabilities (not use, just capability) of PA systems, arrest for unlicensed possession (not use, just possession) of concealable communication devices, etc.
Likewise, the manner in which the 2ndA may be Constitutionally regulated is limited to unjustified threatening, risk, or harm done, and equipment or usage which has undue inherent risk (may explode and harm user, unapproved possession in prisons, firing may ignite & destroy chemical/munitions factory, etc.).
Only argument favoring CCW licensing is at time of enumeration of 2ndA, concealed possession was considered presumptive evidence of ill intent; either impose minimal “good guy” licensing requirements, or reverse intense social opposition to allowing unlicensed open carry.
>>While the 2ndA is a prohibition against such regulation (see prior post), insofar as the infringement occurs it may be regulated for uniformity.
>
>As the tired old analogy that free speech doesn’t give one the right to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater means that free speech can be regulated,
And what an absolutely wrongheaded idea; Congress is not allowed to “abridg[e] the freedom of speech.”
But this ties directly into the idea of ‘incorporation,’ the First Amendment is quite specific in its prohibition: it is CONGRESS which is bound thereby, to assert that the First Amendment binds State Legislatures is to assert that the text of the Amendment can be changed as it is applied to the States... and that is to assert that the Judiciary can indeed amend the Constitution, which by no means is allowed. Therefore, recognize that it is the judiciary which is in rebellion against the proper authorities and they may yet be called to account.
>for better or worse (worse IMHO) the Supreme Court ruled in Heller v DC that the 2nd Amendment is not an ‘absolute’ right and can also be regulated.
This is true, for the moment at least, which is why we need to attack on other fronts, specifically: State Constitutions.
The State Constitutions often phrase the Right to Keep and Bear Arms [very] differently than the 2nd Amendment which, in turn, means that [logically] the Judiciary cannot simply cite the Supreme Court’s declaration concerning the 2nd with some simple text-transformations. (That is to say, it becomes much harder for them.)
Examples:
New Mexico Constitution, Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The first portion of the list prohibits ANY law from abridging the Citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for security and defense; this means that the court CANNOT legitimately prosecute someone for, say, bringing a firearm into a courthouse. {Should a juror, a freeman who has not even been accused of a crime, be forced to disarm? Why? Note also that conceivably he has the power of life and death in his hands by virtue of being a juror and therefore arguments impugning his responsibility in life and death situations is to impinge his competence as a juror.}
SIGNIFICANCE:
The phrase “shall not be denied” is very strong, and that it relates to the bearing of arms it invalidates ALL state, county, and city prohibitions against carrying weapons.
and Section 20
To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.
SIGNIFICANCE:
Section 20 quite bluntly denies EVERYTHING which is contained in Article 1 from the general power of government. This means that the government literally has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY in the matters therein; Section 1 shows that keeping and bearing arms is, indeed, thusly excepted from government infringement/regulation/rule.
SIGNIFICANCE:
This specifically says that the people have the right to bear arms (as the Heler case was decided), but it ALSO connects to that the defense of themselves. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to attack firearm restrictions on the basis of not being able to adequately defend yourself. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled (multiple times) that the police have no affirmitive obligation to an individual private Citizen’s safety, and therefore government-provided security (ie courthouses) CANNOT be said to be a guarantee of any particular citizen’s security.