Can someone with a legal background explain to me how such a solid, clear cut language in the 2A (the right of people to bear arms) could be chopped up and cooked at will like a stew by every state?? 50 different concealed permits, so many different byzantine regulations, etc...
I'm sure this will be corrected as it isn't a legal/historical explanation, but this question can be answered through good old fashioned common sense.
Since it has been decided both historically and in modern times that it does in fact refer to the general public, rather than any sort of organized military, the value/power of the Second Amendment rests on the interpretation of the last four words: "...shall not be
infringed."
The question is, what did the author of the Constitution intend when he used the word
infringe? Synonyms include
encroach,
violate, and
trespass - and they all meant the same things in the late 1700s. Do those words allude to an outright
severance (complete elimination) of a right, or the
impediment (trimming back) of a right?
I would most definitely say an
impediment of my right is an
infringement. Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees; and as Frank Ettin would say, "your opinion doesn't matter [unless you happen to be a US Supreme Court Justice - and you don't]" - which, unfortunately, is as true as it is frustrating; that is to say, entirely.
If SCOTUS interpreted "infringe" to mean "impede", the NFA would be unconstitutional (as would bullet buttons, magazine capacity restrictions, gun free zones, ALL concealed-carry licensing processes and restrictions, etc, etc). Instead, "infringed" is interpreted as "severed," and so it's determined that the Constitution allows for us to have our gun rights modified (trimmed back), but not eliminated completely.
That's really all there is to it.
