Old Blue Collar Joe
Actually, it does mention firearms limitations. It states 'shall not be infringed'.
I am simply going to quote Justice Brown's opinion of Supreme Court in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1989):
"The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed.
Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation;
the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;
the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion (U. S. v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 627 , 16 S. Sup. Ct. 1192);
nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment (Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 , 16 Sup. Ct. 644, and cases cited).
Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial."
Source: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=165&invol=275]
I happily emphasized the point in relation to your comment. This tendency to to make
infringe synonymous with
regulation is not very well grounded, and in fact contrary to constitutional law and interpretation.
if you are unfamiliar with any other case law, you might read United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. This case is used by both sides of the debate on gun control.
But, for grander scope in relation to your comment, as well as Scalia, let's check out what was said in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200
cool :
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
You may disagree with what has been decided, and has been the law, and interpreted view for well over 100 years - which is fine, but it lacks any significant support.