Few weeks ago. Joe biden. Told us our second amendment. Right to bear arms.

Is is not absolute second amendment. Like all other rights is not absolute this isn't taking to anyone's rights. It's about protecting children. It's about protecting families.

It's about protecting whole communities and last week in a 6 3. Decision. The supreme court just struck down new york strict gun limits on carrying concealed weapons in new york. A case wherein.

The court said citizens may quote not be required to explain to the government. Why they sought their right to exercise a constitutional right in fact justice alito goes as far as saying quote will a person hell bent on carrying a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home. So. What do restrictive gun.

Laws. Do other. Than restrict law. Abiding gun owners.

And this is where gun groups. Say quote. The burden is on the government to justify restrictions not on the individual to justify to the government and need to exercise their rights and these rulings are sure to carry some very important implications for what rights we have to carry guns the loudest response of course comes from those on one side who argue that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and therefore. Joe biden is completely wrong to say that the second amendment is not absolute and of course.

The loud folks on the other side. Who say we should just have no guns so what's likely to happen after these supreme court decisions and what kind of precedent has the supreme court given us have they given us any insights into how absolute the second amendment. Actually is is joe biden. Trying to take our guns away.

And has the supreme court given us any answers here well let's get to some of the facts. And some answers because there are some and they're quite interesting especially. Now that we've got a pretty split court that leans quite well to the conservative and republican majority of six three. So.

The first time. The supreme court provided us a deep dive into the second amendment. Was actually during the 2008 case of the district of columbia versus heller this case arose from lawsuits against the washington city council firearms control regulations act of 1975 which banned residents from even owning handguns and weapons in their own homes. The court ultimately decided that the second amendment was quote guarant a guarantee to the individual the right to possess and carry weapons in the case of confrontation and further elevated that the second amendment.

Quote gives us the right of law abiding citizens to use arms in the defense of hearth and home and thus. The supreme court overturned the washington dc handgun ban. But what the case also did was provide us some color on the supreme court's interpretation of the second amendment. The supreme court argues that you can become disqualified from your right to bear arms such as in the case of felons or the mentally ill.

And that should not be misconstrued in any way. But the supreme court also makes it clear that the rights of the second amendment are not unlimited even though they say you have the right to arms. You don't have the right to all arms for example you have the right to own a shotgun. But not the right to own a shoulder mounted missile system or weapons of mass destruction.

This is obviously an extreme example. But the point is clear the right to bear arms. Does not mean the right to bear. All arms and the right of all people to bear any arms.

So what kind of arms do we have the right to own well the supreme court here argues that weapons are protected by the second amendment. If there are weapons that are quote in common use at the time this is a doctrine that arose from the case of united states v. Miller. A 1939 case that decided that weapons protected by the second amendment.

Should have a reasonable relation to a well regulated militia. Remember. A militia is a citizen body that organizes to help a military in the event of need. This is important because a militia would be made up of citizens and the weapons that would be typically found in their home.

A handgun after all is typically found in the home therefore. It is deemed to be protected by the second amendment as a result as we saw in the heller decision. The supreme court added. A note that it may in the future.

Find that machine guns like the m16 rifle. May be a weapon. That's primarily used in the military or maybe. It could be argued that because it was primarily used in the military especially in world war ii.

And many folks were allowed to bring them home that maybe it could be argued that hey we actually have a lot of these military style weapons in the home and therefore maybe civilian use of an ar 15. Might actually be deemed common thanks to the release of so many of these weapons after world war ii of course. Many will also argue the opposite that an ar 15 is a weapon that is not commonly found in someone's home no i want to be very clear here. The supreme court.

Did not say that they're open to banning or allowing ar 15s. However they do make a very clear note that in the future even though now in that heller decision. They were talking about handguns that in the future they could end up having to make a decision on or ars for example uh whether it's an ar 15. Or whatever deemed to be a common weapon in our homes.

One such that a militia or group of individual civilians coming out of their homes. Would go to a militia or call for a militia with an ar15. It's a very interesting argument that we'll certainly see play out my guesses within the next. Few years.

Now some folks like robert cottrell. A professor at george washington university law school says that assault weapons do qualify because these semi automatic rifles like the m1 carbine were used not only in world war ii. And only were people sent home with them. But they were also literally sold by the army to the public after the war.

There was just so many of them and so obviously those guns are in existence in homes. Now either way. The supreme court is clear here the second amendment does not give the united states as a regulator. A blank check.

But it also does not give civilians the blank check to buy any arm that they want there's a balance and they would expect a debate to be framed around what weapons are commonly found in the home. And if they're commonly found in the home. The second amendment protects us. If they're not commonly found in the home then the second amendment does not protect us.

But the pretext for the debate has now been noted by the supreme court. So is your constitutional right to bear arms. Absolute. And limitless well according to the supreme court.

No it's not the right to bear arms is not absolute. And it does have limitations so. This does actually mean that when joe biden. Says your constitutional rights are not absolute second amendment.

Like all other rights is not absolute. He's correct based on even what the supreme court. Themselves says now when someone like tucker carlson. Says that joe biden is trying to take away our guns.

So. This isn't an attempt to stop school shootings. It's not an attempt to make this a safer country this is exactly what it looks like the beginning of a plan to confiscate and criminalize firearms. In the hands of the law abiding in this country.

I have to take issue with this because that isn't what joe biden is doing. He's not trying to take away our guns. Now of course. Tucker carlson.

Had an entire segment on how hey if you have a limitation on the type of ammunition that you could put into a handgun for example you could put only a 10 round magazine. Into a handgun. That's designed for 15 well. Then it might not fit.

Because it'd be too small. But of course saving lives is not the point of this disarming. You is the point. Florida congressman.

Greg stooby. Tried to explain that at a hearing. Today of the house judiciary committee. Watch how this unfolded here's a gun.

I carry every single day to protect myself my family. My wife my home comes with a 15 round magazine here's a seven round magazine. Which would be less than what would be lawful under this bill. If this bill were to come off it doesn't fit so this gun would be banned.

I hope no the gun is not loaded. I'm at my house. I can do whatever i want with my guns obviously. This is where the solution is not effectively.

Banning guns as tucker carlson. Says. It's simply purchasing magazines or qualifying. Under grandfathering in laws.

That are compatible with the weapon. That you have for example a glock 22. A glock 19. Whatever in california has magazines that are sized for it.

Even though they can hold up to 18 to 22 rounds in some cases in california. They have magazines that perfectly fit that are 10 rounds. That's not to say i'm a proponent of what california is doing or i'm a proponent of magazine limitations. But the reality is having magazine limitations don't ban guns.

They just put cost burdens on people to go buy different magazines. Assuming. There's no grandfathering in law. Which of course.

There was even in california. Even in california high capacity magazines had the opportunity for being grandfathered in either way. That's sort of a sidebar on high capacity magazines and sort of a response to tucker carlson video. Where he suggests hey you know biden's trying to take away all of our guns.

That's a really popular thing to say especially since it's really popular make fun of biden right now who only has a 30 approval rating. But it's also very fascinating to think about the precedent. That the supreme court is going to have to deal with over the next few years when soon i expect. The second amendment is going to be on the supreme court's docket again let me know what you think in the comments down below.

Personally. I believe that law abiding citizens. Should have the right to inexpensively sign up for concealed carry licenses through their gun stores or whatever. And after a basic competence and mental health screening should have the right to carry.

I'm a big fan of that but i'd like to see what both sides have to say in the comments down below and we'll certainly see what the supreme court says in the future.