So, what DOES the Constitution mean about guns?

I saw this news article in one of my venerable lugnut feeds this morning: New York will prosecute veteran with high-capacity magazines. The first thing I thought was at least they didn't call them clips.

Magazine:                                                       Clips:


















You can obviously tell how felonious this perpetrator is for possessing 5 of these things that he routinely carried every day when he was in Afghanistan. How dastardly!

Contrary to what you read, the Second Amendment reads:


As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

"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."

 Notice the commas. The version recorded in the records of the Executive Branch, which is the true and correct version, is two clauses instead of the four clauses that are shown many times and truly do show in the one hand-scribed version of the Bill of Rights in the National Archives. Remember - that is a copy of the original text and the law is what was passed by the states.

Notice also: The Second Amendment does not grant a right. The amendment provides that a pre-existing right shall not be infringed. In that it is not granting a right, the Bill of Rights recognizes the validity of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Since the right is not granted by the government but pre-existed the government, the government may not alter something that is not its to alter.

At least that's the way my little pea brain breaks down the logic. Being neither an attorney nor a politician I am not invited into the clubhouse to talk about these things though. Nor do any lobbyists pay me to vote one way or the other about this stuff, since I have no vote anywhere. Nonetheless, that's what I think these things say, that's the way I think things are.

Moving Along to More Law that Most People Never Heard of or Know to be Law

Of course, you recognize 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

and, I'm sure the words are right on your lips from

130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010)
Otis McDONALD, et al., Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.
No. 08-1521.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 2, 2010.
Decided June 28, 2010.

These two court decisions, both fairly recent if you will notice, clearly state what the meaning of the Second Amendment is. Surprise? Of course it is. The media will never just plain read simple statements from these; they always want to take what the media wants to say and wiggle around the words of the court to support their, probably totally wrong, allegations.

That being said, first a direct comment from DC v. Heller:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 and, from McDonald v. Chicago:

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia's, but Chicago and Oak
Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.

Now, I am not an attorney; and, I never played one on television or in the movies. But this language seems straightforward. Weapons in common usemay be possessed by an individual and used for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that right is fully applicable to the States. In a case where a veteran merely possesses items that are, indeed, commonly used accessories to weapons, and is not using them for any purpose, and they are in his home, I would offer that the State of New York has no jurisdiction to prosecute. Actually, if they show up to confiscate his magazines, I say he has the right to use his weapons to defend his home and property. This would be viewed dimly, and he would undoubtedly be plugged dead by law enforcement officers "doing their duty", but then I would say his estate should be able to sue the bejabbers out of the state in Federal court.

Like any of that would ever happen.

But, think about it ...