4 ms·
This line of reasoning concludes that the existence of a federal or state law implies its constitutionality. Given that the system requires a law to be passed
by i_am_proteus 7y ago
This line of reasoning concludes that the existence of a federal or state law implies its constitutionality.
Given that the system requires a law to be passed before a challenge in court, this reasoning is inherently fallacious, since if it were true, no law could be ruled unconstitutional.
- rtkwe 7y agoThings like the NFA and other laws that come expressly into conflict with an unlimited interpretation of the second amendment have been challenged in court on constitutional grounds and those challenges have failed. As far as the US system is concerned that means some forms of limits on the second amendment /are/ constitutional and the 2nd amendment is thus definitively not unlimited unless and until the court issues a ruling that contradicts the previous rulings.