Delta and United join list of companies to cut ties with the NRA - maybe this truly is the end of gun rights in the US?

[Final-Fan]

sc94597 said:

Puppyroach said: 

1. It could be amended to more clearly specify what it refers to (because it is very vague as it is written) nut it opens up for lawmakers to put many regulations on gun ownership. Does it mean that the government shall not infringe on the right to bear arms of a well regulated miltia is to be upheld, does it refer to every citizens right to bear arms? What exactly does it refer to?

2. If we assume that it does refer to every citizen (although that might actually contradict the text), is that right infringed if assault rifles are not part of the picture? If you have the right to own a hunting rifle, you do have the right to bear arms. It does not state "to keep and bear ANY arms" and seem to open up for quite a lot of regulation.

3. Also, can the right be infringed upon if it come in conflict with life, liberty and the pursuit of happines? No law text is a binary system where we can judge everything in black and white. They must always be weighed with other rights given by society and can sometimes come in conflict with them.

4.  in any way, stand in the way of banning every automatic rifle for example.

5. Aslong as there are weapons available for the citizens to own, that right does not stand in contradiction with heavlity regulating the amount of different weapons available.

1. Since there is no agreement on what it should be amended to this is unlikely. 

2. The Supreme Court in D.C vs. Heller made the decision on the following grounds: that the weapons be in "common use" by the militia. Since there are at least 50 million semi-automatic rifles in the U.S, it seems like a stretch to interpret such weapons as not being in "common use." 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

"    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”"

3. These are not codified in the constitution. Plus that would be a very hard legal argument to make. 

4. The Supreme Court agreed, that is why automatic rifles are heavily regulated by the NFA (1933) and FOPA (1986.) 

5. Again the Supreme Court had much more specific criteria, that any weapons that are in "common use" by the militia can't be banned. Since semi-automatic rifles make up a significant proportion of new rifle sales, it seems unlikely that a future Supreme Court will decide that said weapons aren't in common use. 

I think you may be gravely misrepresenting the relevant portion of the Heller opinion: 
"
    We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.²⁵
"

The Heller opinion specifically recoils from the earlier Miller opinion's conflation of military arms with personal arms.  This is literally the opposite of what you said, unless you and I have very different definitions of "militia".  This does not necessarily mean your conclusion is wrong (or right*).  But other conclusions based on the same misinterpretation would be highly suspect. 

*I would certainly argue that minimally modified assault rifles qualify as "dangerous and unusual" firearms.