Originally Posted by Jerry
Did I say any of your stance infringe? I don’t believe I made any statement about your “stance”. I believe I stated that what you posted about the SCOTS being there to interpret the Constitution was/is incorrect and that people (that includes some of the SCOTS) cant seem to get it through their thick sculls what “shall not infringe means”.
The SCOTS DO NOT/HAVE NOT BEEN GRANTED
the power to CHANGE
what is written in the Constitution. The only people that have that power are the congress and/or the states.
- Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
That pretty much covers what is ment by "shall not be infringed" in the Second.
SCOTUS rules on constitutional issues. By their very nature, then, they must interpret the constitution. Thats the only way to rule on things. So theres no way around that one unless you want to restructure the American form of government.
And again, none of those stances fit the word 'infringe' so there is no problem here. The constitution has been respected.
But since you want to know which of your stances fit that criteria here you go… “I support. Licensing to carry firearms”. Having to pay for the “privilege” changes it from a right to a ”PRIVILEGE”. It IS AN INFRINGEMENT!
I guess you missed the shall issue part. Its also a right to marry, however people have to get a marriage license to marry, right?
However, like I said, I'm kinda on the fence about that one. I've only ever known a shall issue licensing state, so I don't have much to compare it to. I will say I oppose may issue states.