The word "infringed" in the context of the Second Amendment

[bdickens]

There's a dichotomy here. The RKBA side has cleaved to a "No means No" ideological purity that cannot be supported in law. Which is due to the nature of law, and humans, all that entails.
All Amendments, even the Bill of Rights, have "infringements" (even that pesky, under-tested 3rd).
The Framers would have recognized any number of limitations upon the BOR, in both the general and the specific.

Perhaps, had the word "unduly" been inserted before "infringed" things might have been different. The Framers would have understood infringements like not allowing drunkards or the incompetent free range with weapons, that armories ought be locked up and secured, protected from loss or mischief.

We accept limitations on all sorts of things, and only upon the 2nd do we impose a purity that is not achievable. Now, have the infringements become burdensome, unwieldy, onerous? Many will agree on this point. Not all, as evidenced by the laws and regulations we object to.

Good points.

I think in our context, the word infringe takes on an older definition more along the lines of effectively preventing or denying the exercise of a right.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In addition:

....The 2nd amendment has been infringed on for the past century or more in regards to the founders intent.

You might believe that but, in real life in the real world, what you believe doesn't matter. What matters is, as described in posts 5 and 17, what the federal courts say.

And lawyers played a substantial role in the founding of our nation. Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers, and of the 55 Framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.

No, but it does take a law student to understand the legal definitions, which tend to be considerably more precise than those of common usage.

Not necessarily, but --

• As has been said here many times before, to understand the law, one needs to actually study it (whether formally or informally). Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just by trying to "reason it out." One needs to do the research, study cases, and do the reading.
  
  
• Language is a fundamental tool in the law. One does need robust language skills and the ability to use language precisely.
  
  
• Courts will look at the common meanings of words (Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42):
  

  ...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...

 

[orpington]

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers, and of the 55 Framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.

This is an interesting concept as those that were lawyers in that era were more likely to be of the privileged class and, therefore, would have the most to lose if “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” elected to overthrow the ruling class. I strongly suspect that the founding fathers deemed that without (England, King George) to be more of a threat than that within (fellow citizens). Perhaps as this country progressed in ways the founding fathers never imagined, and we play good defense through the armed forces and the Department of Defense, certain legislators view an armed militia or citizenry to be a greater threat, and thus, the definition of infringement has allowed it to be okay, despite that which the second amendment states, to allow for infringement through background checks, waiting periods, etc.

i, or you, might not like what it is, but this is how it has evolved, largely because those in power do not understand firearms and this country today would not be what it is without them.

Having said that, and while it appears to be unconstitutional, I’m sure there are many parts of the Constitution and amendments that, if parsed word for word could be deemed to be unconstitutional.

I am just appalled, frankly, that something as simple and concise as the second amendment, which clearly disallows for infringement, could be open to so much interpretation because of its brevity and, inevitably, it leads to the chipping away of the right to keep and bear arms until, eventually, that freedom is lost.

mid you don’t believe it can happen, it already has in many other countries, many of which can hardly be described as third world countries.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

No, but it does take a law student to understand the legal definitions, which tend to be considerably more precise than those of common usage.

Not to know the founders intent. They just got through fighting a revolution that started with the King trying to seize powder and arms. Had not been for citizens holding personal arms that wouldn't have been successful.

All you all are bringing out all the modern issues with how lawyers will use language and twist definitions to their favor that may allow rights to be taken but that doesn't change the original intent of the founders when they wrote it. There are even many correspondence letters discussing the right for possession of arms that adds to the clarity of the founders position on the issue.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Having said that, and while it appears to be unconstitutional, I’m sure there are many parts of the Constitution and amendments that, if parsed word for word could be deemed to be unconstitutional....

How can something in the Constitution be unconstitutional? By definition, what's in the Constitution is constitutional.

... I am just appalled, frankly, that something as simple and concise as the second amendment,....

Your being appalled doesn't change the reality of what the law is.

...All you all are bringing out all the modern issues with how lawyers will use language and twist definitions to their favor that may allow rights to be taken but that doesn't change the original intent of the founders when they wrote it. There are even many correspondence letters discussing the right for possession of arms that adds to the clarity of the founders position on the issue.

None of your opinions in that regard mean anything, in real life in the real world, unless adopted by the federal courts.

In real life in the real world if courts aren't deciding matters using what you think the law is, your understanding of what the law is is wrong. The opinions of courts on matters of law affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee. The fact is the world is going about its business, and will continue to do so, without regard to your opinions.

Please stay on topic and follow Legal Forum Guidelines. Further off topic posts will at least result in this thread being closed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Continued thread drift, with another off-topic post deleted.