General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bill Would Force Calif. Gun Owners To Buy Insurance [View all]X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If I said, "Pizza being necessary to late-night study sessions, the right of people to grow and eat tomatoes shall not be infringed." -- would you say that tomatoes are only to be used for pizza sauce? That other uses aren't allowed or protected? Of course not.
Know what else isn't in the bill of rights or the constitution? The right to travel. That doesn't mean it's not a right- far from it.
I thought it was republicans who were stuck on silly with the whole "Show me in the constitution where it says {whatever}."
Hunting and sport shooting- both are traditionally "lawful purposes" just like self-defense- that is the criteria for identifying classes of weapons that are protected (e.g., handguns are frequently used for lawful self-defense, therefore Chicago and DC's handgun bans were struck down.)
Which is not to say that all restrictions are unconstitutional. Just as time/place/manner restrictions on the right protected by the first amendment are permissible, prohibiting guns from being sold to felons, etc would likewise not be an abridgment of the right protected by the second amendment.
Government must provide a compelling reason for restricting rights, with the proper standard of judicial review.