Originally Posted by KC_Lee
Let me toss this out there, and I know I am touching on two very emotional topics.
Gun ownership is protected under the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution; "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".
Abortion is also legal and considered constitutional based on the Supreme Court's decision on Roe vs. Wade under the 14th Amendment (privacy under due process) of the US Constitution.
However, the one right that is explicitly listed (gun ownership) has multiple federal, state, county and municipal laws governing who and what a citizen can own. The moment a government proposes, not passes just proposes, the one right that was interpreted by the court (abortion) people come out of the woodwork screaming that you cannot infringe on that particular right.
So my question; why is the explicitly listed right allowed to be governed by so many laws and the interpreted right given a pass?
The part you left out before the "..." is kind of important.
No matter what side of this someone is on, no one can tell me that the 2nd Am is obvious in its meaning and intent. It is f'd-up writing and I doubt it was all that clear when they wrote it.
I also find it interesting that even people like Scalia freely acknowledge that gun restrictions are fine--they just can't go too far. In the last big 2nd Am ruling--I believe it was a ban on handguns in Chicago--Scalia said cities are free to enact restrictive laws, but that one went too far because it banned a whole class of weapon. I'm not sure where he pulled that distinction from, but he clearly indicated that restrictive laws are not automatically unconstitutional.