The Second Amendment, as far as I can find, is the only constitutional guarantee which the state can prohibit an individual from exercising with the endorsement of the judicial.

Even those protesting at the Port of Olympia who feel their various constitutional protections were violated by the state can seek recourse. As has been presented to OlyBlog, the City of Seattle was forced to compensate for the 1999 World Trade Organization rioting in which the federal court system ruled in favor of the private citizen being violated by the state.

Thus, if you feel your constitutional guarantees other than the Second have been violated, a reasonable person can assume they will have the opportunity to present their side to an unbiased judiciary which may find in their favor.

So why is it that the Second Amendment is able to be suspended - with approval from the judicial? A quick scan of Wikipedia (hardly an academic authority but an appropriate source for a quick snippet) reveals the state can suspend the Second Amendment when an individual has been:

1. Involuntarily committed to a mental institution

2. Convicted of a felony

3. Convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence[65][66] or not, since in one jurisdiction the Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence law was ruled a violation of the 2nd and 5th Amendments and was ruled unconstitutional for two years though that decision was reversed on appeal and the Supreme Court has not granted certiorari.

4. Convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and in the military, and being unable as a soldier in uniform to handle any weapons, although per Department of Defense policy, crew-served weapons such as tanks, missiles, and aircraft are exempt from the Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence law and may be handled or used by a soldier previously convicted of a crime of domestic violence despite the same individual not being allowed to handle or use a pistol.

5. Dishonorably discharged from the military

I was actually pretty surprised that being dishonorably discharged from the military is sufficient ground for the government to suspend your constitutional guarantees, but now that question on the sheet you have to fill out to purchase a firearm from a retailer makes more sense.

Now we come to Sean Taylor. As I'm sure most are aware by now, Taylor was a safety for the Washington Redskins. His home was broken into and, unfortunately, Taylor was shot and later died from the amount of blood loss. The only defense available (and acceptable if one wanted to be a law-abiding citizen) to Taylor? A machete.

Taylor's ability to exercise a constitutional guarantee was suspended because of a no-contest plea to displaying a handgun during a fight.

There was no recourse for Sean Taylor - and numerous other Americans, is no recourse - when the judicial is working hand-in-hand with each level of government to determine just how much of the Second Amendment we should be "privileged" to exercise.