"reasonable restrictions" v. "shall not be infringed"

[gcrtkd]

This has been discussed in various places (I'm sure*) but I think it would be useful to see the arguments consolidated in one thread...

Question before CalGuns:

Since McDonald did not seem to declare a level of scrutiny for firearms legislation, how do we predict that various "reasonable restrictions" against keeping and bearing arms at the state and local level (deemed to be allowable by SCOTUS) will be reconciled with the 2A's clear admonishment in the operative clause that this right "shall not be infringed"?

Thoughts?

-gcrtkd

* See Uxi's post #103 @ http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...=316264&page=3

[dantodd]

"shall not be infringed" is not absolute. Do you think that prisons in San Quentin should be armed? Do you think the mentally incompetent should be armed?

So, now that we have taken away the absolutist interpretation let's talk about what restrictions are reasonable. Well, we have a rich jurisprudence on how we go about determining if an infringement on a fundamental right is acceptable. It is the standard which is used in most laws limiting free speech. This is termed "strict scrutiny" and it makes it very difficult on the government to prove that a restriction is "reasonable" which is how it should be.

In legalese this was made pretty clear in McDonald.

[PatriotnMore]

Don't those two class of persons you cite, lose certain rights and privileges under law?

That is not the same as a non convicted citizen. Apples and apples please. Now with regards to a citizens who have no loss of rights or privileges, what part of shall not be infringed, do I not qualify for?

"shall not be infringed" is not absolute. Do you think that prisons in San Quentin should be armed? Do you think the mentally incompetent should be armed?

So, now that we have taken away the absolutist interpretation let's talk about what restrictions are reasonable. Well, we have a rich jurisprudence on how we go about determining if an infringement on a fundamental right is acceptable. It is the standard which is used in most laws limiting free speech. This is termed "strict scrutiny" and it makes it very difficult on the government to prove that a restriction is "reasonable" which is how it should be.

In legalese this was made pretty clear in McDonald.

[dantodd]

Don't those two class of persons you cite, lose certain rights and privileges under law?

Isn't that what a statutory infringement is, the loss of a right under law?

That is not the same as a non convicted citizen.

A mentally incompetent person isn't convicted of anything.

Apples and apples please. Now with regards to a citizens who have no loss of rights or privileges, what part of shall not be infringed, do I not qualify for?

The same types that people who wish to express their right to freedom of speech do not qualify for. You can be prevented from holding a rally or protest on public property without a permit and the same is likely true for CCW. You cannot just jabber about and interrupt the proceedings of court or the legislature the same is likely true for carrying a gun into certain sensitive areas.

[PatriotnMore]

And now we get to the meat of my problem, concession. What the Constitution says, and what it is being given as law through interpretation, are not the same.

The warnings from our founders are many on this exact issue, thank you for driving it home.