Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
The interesting thing to note is there are no exceptions or limiting language built into the First Amendment. In fact, the exceptions that we have for the regulation of free speech are a product of judicial activism. The first real exception was saying free speech doesn’t apply to commercial speech. The most famous exception is pornography although for all practical purposes that is dead unless it is something illegal. However, there are two big exceptions built into the Second Amendment. One it states a purpose a militia. Secondly, it says the militia has to be well regulated.
The issue of the term "militia" within the Second Amendment was resolved contrary to malibber's opinion by the US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008.
"CONCLUSION
In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer filed dissenting opinions, each joined by the other as well as Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a well-regulated state militia, not for other purposes even if they are lawful. Justice Breyer agreed with Stevens' argument but also stated that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any law regulating the use of firearms would have to be "unreasonable or inappropriate" to violate the Second Amendment. In Breyer's view, the D.C. laws at issue in this case were both reasonable and appropriate."
Ref: IIT Chicago - Kent College of Law
In McDonald v Chicago, 2010 the US Supreme Court clarified that the decision rendered in District of Columbia v. Heller holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments (i.e. States and Cities) as well as the Federal Government.
"CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. With Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court recognized in Heller that the right to self-defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right. The Court reasoned that because of its holding in Heller, the Second Amendment applied to the states. Here, the Court remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit to determine whether Chicago's handgun ban violated an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."
Ref: IIT Chicago - Kent College of Law
