What law/ammendment supercedes 2A on privat property?

[Nathan]

In general, the federal government regulates what happens on private property, especially regarding, fair treatment in employment, civil rights, protection of classes, etc.

What keeps the 2A from mandating that CCW be allowable in all places, public and private? It seems like when arguements are made to this point, people get all up in arms about their right to dictate what happens on their own private property. It also seems like even with 2A, our rights are highly restricted regarding the "bearing" of arms.

Am I missing something? Is state law being made that is in violation of 2A?

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

What you're missing is that the Constitution doesn't apply to individual conduct. It limits/dictates federal (and by incorporation under the 14th amendment, state) government behavior. It does not and never did control individual behavior.

 

[Nickel Plated]

Atleast not until gun-owners become a protected class of people under the law that can not be discriminated against. Highly unlikely.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...not until gun-owners become a protected class of people under the law that can not be discriminated against...

1. Rights protected by the Constitution are essentially irrelevant when dealing with a non-governmental actor. As explained by the United States Supreme Court (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added):

   ....The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States. With a few exceptions, such as the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. Tarkanian, supra, 488 U.S., at 191, 109 S.Ct., at 461; Flagg Bros, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees "preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law" and "avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. ....

   
   
2. In general, discrimination is not illegal. You do it all the time. Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.
   
   
3. Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurant discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge. Businesses also discriminate whenever they hire one person instead of another who has applied for the job.
   
   
4. Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property.
   
   
5. Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal. There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category. In general, gun owners aren't a protected class.
   
   
6. The statutes are specific as to rights protected, against what conduct, and for whom. If something you think is a right isn't included in the statute, and if some private conduct should be included but isn't, and if some class of people you think ought to be protected isn't included in the statute, that "right" and/or that class of people aren't protected by the statute against that conduct.
   
   
7. If you think that's wrong, get politically active and try to get the law changed.

...Is state law being made that is in violation of 2A?

And if one thinks government has exceeded its powers, the courts are open for business. With regard to any existing or possible future governmental actions which might be applied to limit, restrict or prohibit activities associated with the keeping and/or bearing of arms, here's essentially how things work:

1. Any governmental action limiting, restricting or prohibiting activities associated with the keeping and/or bearing of arms is subject to judicial challenge.
   
   
2. In the course of deciding Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (United States Supreme Court, 2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago (Supreme Court, 2010, No. 08-1521)), the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.
   
   
3. There is judicial authority going back well before Heller and McDonald for the proposition that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation by government. Any such regulation must pass some level of scrutiny. The lowest level of scrutiny sometimes applied to such regulation, "rational basis", appears to now have been taken off the table, based on some language in McDonald. And since the Court in McDonald has explicitly characterized the right described by the Second Amendment as fundamental, there is some possibility that highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny" will apply, at least to some issues.
   
   
4. The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest.
   
   
5. Whichever level of scrutiny may apply, the government, state or federal, seeking to have the regulation sustained will have the burden of convincing a court (and in some cases, ultimately the Supreme Court) that the regulation is acceptable under the applicable level of scrutiny.
   
   
6. Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy. Until Heller just five years ago, it was still in doubt whether the Second Amendment would be found to describe an individual or collective right. Until McDonald just three years ago, the law was that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)). So the scope and extent of permissible regulation of rights described by the Second Amendment is still unclear.
   
   
7. There are approximately 70 cases in various stages of litigation in various federal courts around the country challenging various law purporting to regulate the RKBA.
   
   
8. The bottom line is that Second Amendment jurisprudence will need to mature over time as these sorts of issues get litigated.