someone explain this statement

[Jmac00]

[QUOTE] Kent Anthony Kroemer From a legal perspective, we can ban all guns except handguns to be used inside the home ...that is constitutionally protected as of 2008 [/QUOTE]

This guy insists that the 2A only applies to handguns and they can only be kept in the home, ALL OTHER WEAPONS can and should be banned.

He insists this is what the 2A says?

Im not articulate enough to respond, help me out here.

 

[Depick]

Just another mans interpretation and opinion of the second amendment.

 

[GOYABEAN]

[QUOTE] Kent Anthony Kroemer From a legal perspective, we can ban all guns except handguns to be used inside the home ...that is constitutionally protected as of 2008

This guy insists that the 2A only applies to handguns and they can only be kept in the home, ALL OTHER WEAPONS can and should be banned.

He insists this is what the 2A says?

Im not articulate enough to respond, help me out here.[/QUOTE]
Translation in simple terms he's full of shit

 

[ManrisFrack]

He's referring to the Heller and McDonald decisions. It's an EXTREMELY narrow reading and not valid. It ignores all of the historical examination done in Heller as well as the fact that weapons "in common use" were also specifically protected. Handguns in the home were specifically protected but the decision neglects to draw any lines beyond that. Despite this, NY continues to consider handgun possession anywhere as illegal by default.

 

[Darth]

He's, blatantly incorrectly, reading it as "the law says you can have handguns, that means only handguns."

Like "cars can drive on the Thruway." True. "That means only cars."

 

[Acer-m14]

the simple wording .. define arms per the 2A .. shall not infringe ... arms back then meant anything the KING had or the Opposing force had ..
the people shall have .. and is what we SHOULD have today .. not 50 million gun laws & the F in ATF ..

We the people are the militia to protect the states from Kings and Queens ( thank God she lost)

 

[Jmac00]

this guy also said this :

The bigger problem is that too many people dont understand the 2nd Amendment. Constitutional Law is interpreted by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone! That Court has determined that America citizens ONLY have a 2nd Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms in the form of a handgun, and are allowed to carry it in their home. D.C. v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). There is no other interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by SCOTUS, so I beg the masses to pls stop trying to be a Supreme Court Justice.
It simply infuriates me when my fellow Americans scream and yell about 2nd Amendment rights but dont understand simple Constitutional Law, inclusive of what are the powers of the U.S. Supreme Court as explained in the landmark 1803 case of Marbury v Madison.
We absolutely do NOT have a Constitutional right to carry an AR-15, nor do we have a Constitutional right to carry a gun outside our home. There is a huge difference between state legislative acts and Constitutional rights! Ugh! Smh!

 

[Marine Cpl]

He's quoting the corrupt Heller decision which makes statements that aren't written anywhere in the 2A.

 

[ManrisFrack]

To which I respond, it is YOU who do not understand the American legal system. Rights are not narrowed by the fact that SCOTUS has chosen not to limit them in a given way. SCOTUS has not ruled specifically on our right to AR-15s or carry outside the home (although they have ruled on weapons in common use and by ANY honest measure that does include AR-15s). Considering this, it is proper to interpret "keep and bear arms" as broadly as possible under applicable case law as it concerns a basic human right.