The 2nd is clear and yet some do not want to understand it.
If a right may not be infringed than that does mean in the context of bearing arms that was that man does is not covered at all. He is in the middle of Manhattan, a business district of town, carrying a ready to fire arm. He has every right to own this gun, he even has every right to carry this gun in the very opposite to his intentions.
There are several ways to transport a gun. Most will imply very different intentions than a fast walking man holding the gun at the hand grip and trigger, loaded with a suppressor. Therefore, based on reason and common sense, which is a very important part of U.S. law philosophy instead of paragraphing human interactions, every other human has right and reason to believe that this human is violating and abusing a constitutional right.
There are plenty of unconstitutional laws in every State of the U.S.A. since CIA and FBI were founded and the FED rules the money, but not one specific on punishment for violating a constitutional right in an abusive manner.
No one argues that the Founding Fathers had no such action as this man is about to commit in mind when writing down the final version of the Constitution the U.S.A. obeys to, but it appears also that a different School of Law took power in the U.S.A.
The action of this man could be a 2nd Amendment Abuse by threatening, heressing and killing with a firearm abusing its purpose causing public disorder and disturbance of peace violating public and personal rights leading even into loosing citizenship, if not standing on the Constitution of the U.S.A. by character and attitude, beside jail time depending on the individual State of the U.S.A ontop of the murder charges. That there is Class A murder.
#constitutionalists
