Quote of the day–David E. Young

First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained – shall not be infringed – nor shall the right be infringed. The Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

David E. Young
February 8, 2009
The Meaning of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’
[Unfortunately, intent and result are two different things. We still have a long way to go.–Joe]


One thought on “Quote of the day–David E. Young

  1. Young does not mention in the quoted section what I see as a salient point about the Second — the absolute nature of the prohibition. The First Amendment is a prohibition on Congress. CONGRESS shall make no law. The states, on the other hand, are free to pass any damned law they please — and they did. Now, that changed later, but…

    But the Second… It says absolutely, “…shall not be infringed” with no limit on the actors who shall not infringe. To me, this includes ALL possible actors — public or private. There’s an interface there where one might argue private property rights should prevail, but certainly no property used for public accomodation (malls, hotels, amusement parks, restaurants), may claim the shield of private property rights to abridge a constitutionally-protected civil right to keep and bear the means of self defense.


Comments are closed.