The Second Amendment is there to protect everyone’s rights and I sort of think it should supersede the rights of states to impose laws that restrict the firearms ownership of their citizens. Too often these laws have been aimed at limiting the rights of women and minorities to own firearms for what ever purpose they deem fit but most often self-defense.
Therefore the anti-gun laws tend to violate not only the Second but the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
From Gunnuts Media: The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns
August 25, 2014
Despite my better judgement, I want to engage in a thought exercise this morning. I think we can all agree that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to the people to keep and bear firearms for basically whatever reason they want. That’s fine. That is the launching point for this mental exercise. From there, we have to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that just because a person has a legal right to own a gun doesn’t necessarily mean that they should. This stems from the fact that owning a gun requires a person to be at least marginally responsible, because hey, it turns out that guns are kind of dangerous when used irresponsibly.
In our current situation, it is functionally impossible to restrict the access of stupid but otherwise law abiding people to guns without also unfairly restricting the access of reasonable people. So here’s the thought exercise: if it was possible to restrict dangerously irresponsible people from having guns without infringing on the rights of reasonable folk, should we? Would the potential benefit in reduction of accidental shootings outweigh the potential infringement on the Constitutional rights of someone who hadn’t yet broken the law?
You can make convincing arguments in both directions. On the one hand, stupid, dangerously irresponsible people actually damage the right to keep and bear arms. Whenever someone leaves a loaded gun laying around and a kid shoots another kid with it, that leads to more irresponsible legislation. Whenever Bubba shoots Cleetus in the chest with a gun that “isn’t loaded”, Michael Bloomberg gets a chub at the thought of restricting gun rights. There are very good reasons from our side to restrict certain person’s access to firearms, quite simply because it would be better for us in general to clean up our ranks a bit.
The counter argument of course is that it is wrong to remove someone’s Constitutional rights without due process; and the Constitution doesn’t care if you’re stupid or smart. Which is all true, and something that I agree with in principle. In fact, while it’s a simplistic rebuttal, it is incredibly effective because it’s 100% correct.