yup. "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. the founders had cannons and machine guns. and... french/british/etc arms/ammo.
but you're right in that the state infringes upon the right. too bad that wasn't your argument.
That the state reasonably infringes upon our rights is *precisely* the context under which I was asking my questions. In my initial post, I said:
"I'm curious about to
the extent to which the right to bear arms requires the state to facilitate access (or at least not hinder it). Do you think banning Russian ammo would be struck down in court as unconstitutional?"
I bolded that part because it is critical...and it invalidates a response of 'what good are guns with no ammo?'. I am not asking if the state can effectively ban ALL ammo, as that would obviously be incompatible with the right to bear arms...but that does not mean that the state can't do ANYTHING with regard to the supply of ammo. I'm looking for the line, which is why I asked whether banning Russian ammo would be struck down.
I was indeed challenging someone to expand upon their claim that the ban "sounds like an infringement on the people's ability to keep and bear arms", because I felt that claim needed more context...i.e. what I was getting at is whether it would be ruled to be an *unreasonable* infringement, given that the state ';reasonably' infringes in all sorts of ways. The details matter.
I didn't know the % of the market Russia or what effect the ban would have on supply or price, so I'm interested in where the line is...i.e. to what extent the gov't has to ensure supply (though, as pointed out, it is more correct to ask to what extent the state can't interrupt the existing supply).
These details could matter a lot. If Russian ammo represents 2% of the market, good luck claiming the ban violates the constitution if overall supply would be uninterrupted and prices probably don't budge...but if is a significant %, and there are no alternate sources to fill the void, then supply could be severely impacted and prices might soar. Even if it is something in between and supply is modestly impacted'and prices go up 'a little bit'...is that unconstitutional? Do you have a right to as much ammo as you want? Do you have a right to it at a an affordable price? Or do none of these details even matter so long as the state isn't actively interfering in a negative way?
This is why the law is interesting...because what seems sooooooo simple and obvious often is not...and can raise a whole host of questions.