As a non American, it seems to me that allowing government to restrict (through the use of permits/regulations) the right of citizens to bear arms is contrary to the 2A, which is there to protect the citizens from that self-same government.
What I can't reconcile is the need to restrict firearms to known criminals with a history of violence. I happen to agree with this restriction, but it also seems to go against the 2A.
Anyone more familiar with the situation care to comment on this one?
What started off as just "common sense" "prohibiting violent felons with a history of using a gun to commit a crime", has grown exponentially.
As our government has been busy criminalizing it's citizens with mountains of statute and criminal code, while at the same time expanding the prohibited class of illegal gun ownership, the rights of the 2nd amendment has been restricted to a particular class of people by design.
To your question in particular, felons are suppose to loose their constitutional right of the 2nd even after they have served their time. They also loose the right to vote.
In my opinion it's all unconstitutional, every single restrictive law passed after the ink dryed on the constitution is illegal.
Shall not be Infringed
current list of prohibited class, excluding red flag laws.(If the government takes your guns away, it doesn't matter what they call it).
convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
As a non American, it seems to me that allowing government to restrict (through the use of permits/regulations) the right of citizens to bear arms is contrary to the 2A, which is there to protect the citizens from that self-same government.
What I can't reconcile is the need to restrict firearms to known criminals with a history of violence. I happen to agree with this restriction, but it also seems to go against the 2A.
Anyone more familiar with the situation care to comment on this one?
What started off as just "common sense" "prohibiting violent felons with a history of using a gun to commit a crime", has grown exponentially.
As our government has been busy criminalizing it's citizens with mountains of statute and criminal code, while at the same time expanding the prohibited class of illegal gun ownership, the rights of the 2nd amendment has been restricted to a particular class of people by design.
To your question in particular, felons are suppose to loose their constitutional right of the 2nd even after they have served their time. They also loose the right to vote.
In my opinion it's all unconstitutional, every single restrictive law passed after the ink dryed on the constitution is illegal.
Shall not be Infringed
current list of prohibited class, excluding red flag laws.(If the government takes your guns away, it doesn't matter what they call it).