[rob74]

The only thing that the U.S. constitution has to say about gun laws is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Which means Puerto Rico's gun laws are not in line with the current interpretation of this cryptic sentence prevalent in the 50 current states (as in more strict - what a scandal!), but saying they are unconstitutional is a bit of a stretch IMHO.

[midoridensha]

It IS unconstitutional, because the SCOTUS says so. Whatever their interpretation is, is the law and defines what's "constitutional". Yes, even when the Justices are a bunch of partisan hacks and their interpretation is BS. You may not like it, but that's the way the law works.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

Funnily enough, the second amendment isn't that cryptic. It says that, in order for the states to remain free, they need their own militia made up of the people, and that militia needs arms, thus the federal government shall make no laws inhibiting their ability to acquire said arms.

Ironically, the laws we have on the books are technically unconstitutional.

[friend_and_foe]

Just a nitpick, it doesn't say the federal government shall make no laws, it basically says nobody will. Precedent after the fact limited the scope of the bill of rights to the federal government until the passage of the 14th amendment, but the wording of the amendment itself placed no such restriction.

[friend_and_foe]

Even under more restrictive interpretations that were prevalent in times past, Puerto Rico doesn't qualify. Their gun laws are very similar to other Latin American countries. They require you to have a reason to get a gun, and a "may issue" policy which means they can just say no with no justification required. They don't often say yes, so de facto gun ownership in Puerto Rico is banned, the only people that get them are the politically connected and people who grease palms.