I was reading through some old posts from an affiliate and had somewhat of an epiphany…if you’re interested please continue reading below!
Ladies and gentlemen, introducing the Second Amendment:
“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.”
And now, the Fourteenth Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I suppose the question you’re asking now sounds something like, “What does this have to do with anything?” If I may have a further moment of your time, I can explain…
There are a few states, such as California and New York, that have SEVERE firearms restrictions in place meant to reduce crimes committed with firearms. They claim to make an attempt to reduce the capabilities of criminals (or would be criminals) to obtain firearms to commit criminal acts (this is a post for another time). Specifically, they restrict automatic, some semi-automatic, and some revolver pistols from being wielded by legal citizens of the state and country. California, for example, does not allow revolvers that can fire .410 shot shells and 45 colt rounds from the same pistol. California also requires manufacturers to pass certain manufacturing requirements, in addition to paying a steep fee, for their products to be on a “registry” of allowed pistols that can be sold to state residents. Firearms advocates have long argued that these laws are unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment alone. Every time this discussion is presented, it fails (understandably so) because the argument fails to take into account anything more than the perspective that a person’s right, “shall not be infringed”. Under the auspices of this argument, the laws in such states aren’t violating a person’s right to bear arms as long as some of them are still allowed.
If you’ve had your “aha!” moment…wonderful! If you haven’t, let me further explain…
The second sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment states clearly, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If the Second Amendment establishes that a person’s right ‘to bear arms’ can’t be restricted, then the Fourteenth Amendment protects this right further by restricting EVERY state from creating laws that reduce (or abridge) the privileges and freedoms a citizen of the United States is guaranteed under the entirety of the Constitution (abridge, from a legal perspective, means to curtail or reduce the availability of). This includes the Second Amendment!
Does this also apply to Federal gun laws? Why yes, yes it does! Unless you have been convicted of a crime at the state or federal levels, your right to bear arms is absolutely your right to bear any arms you feel are necessary for your livelihood or personal protection and shall not be restricted or abridged.
These are the facts, people. The logic is sound and can’t be argued. Has this been argued this way before?