What happens when constitutional rights contradict each other?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Hi again

As fan of the "innate rights" platform, I will say that these rights are part of each human. This is a founding postulate for the US government as articulated in the Declaration. Many people in the British colonies viewed the British government as failing in many regards to respect some basic rights. They founded a new nation.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Constitution and BoR are a consequence of the Declaration. Each colony (Delaware, Virginia...) was considered a separate sovereign state. Leaders of the time advocated for these states forming a confederation as they had common interests and a common enemy. The federal government was intended as a means of unifying the states. This is the reason that feds generally deal with crimes committed on an interstate level or with crimes committed on federal lands. Most crimes assaults, murder, auto theft... are the purview of states. If you murder in New Jersey and flea to New York you are not tried in New York if you are caught there. There is an extradition hearing and you are returned to New Jersey. Similar process as if you were caught in Canada.

Many state Constitutions contain an enumeration of rights. These Bills or list of rights are not idly naming things. They exist as protections against the same usurpations experienced by the people under British rule in the 18th century. They are there to protect the people from their own governments. These protections operate as criteria for potential challenges in court to laws and acts by the government. The McDonald v. City of Chicago and DC v Heller cases are instances of this type of challenge. The aim of government is to provide for people to have a level field in which to pursue their own lives. On the individual level it is correct to permit a means of self-defense. A means by which a person can end an assault where they have a valid concern for their lives, bodily injury, safety, etc. is a right. There is a science to the development of tools (arms and weapons) for that purpose. The double edged sword of this is that the same tools for defense make good tools for the criminals for offensive use.

The idea of the 2A was as a protection against government disarming individuals. For federal purposes the reason therein explained was for militia purposes. The militia is named in the Constitution in several places. This gives specific nexus to the federal government for such a law. It is one thing to require that a government has a right to raise a militia and military but it is quite another to expect an effective one to exist apart from certain essential experiences such as skill with a firearm.

This right exists apart from any government protections against attempts at legislative interference with it. How best to enact the valid limitations of this freedom is the core of gun regulation.

You ask specifically about:

"the right to live without fear in a peaceful society"

There is no such right. In reality there are aggressors among us both animal and human. Any belief that this reality can be changed by passing a law, is a personal or shared fantasy by a subset of people.

The only real control among humans is self-control. The "control" aspect of gun-control is a myth. Laws act principally as criteria for use in court.