Speaking of the 2nd Amendment, if anyone on the Supreme Court actually...

[TreasonousBastard]

wants to read the minds of the founders (talking to you-- Scalia's Ghost) try understanding the situation of the new US, and the world at the time.

The new nation had a Navy for protection, but had no standing army. Armies were considered to be mischievous things that caused nothing but trouble. They cost money and kept on getting involved in city-states warring against each other, and revolutions when the spirit took them.

At the time, Federalists were saying there's really no need for a declaration of rights, and slave and free states were ready to cut each others throats.

State militias were the highest law of the land back then, and they could be federalized if, say, Canada invaded us. A real threat, since they were part of the British empire at the time-- the same British empire we fought again in 1812.

Anyway, NY and Virginia were the biggest states at the time, and they needed both of them to approve the Bill of Rights or it would die. Since we had no Army, state militias were it, and we had already seen how governments in Europe went after civilian arms in order to control the population. Can't have Washington locking up arms the militia might have to use.

Turns out, though, that one of the the biggest uses of the state militias was putting down slave organizing in the southern states. There were things like the Whiskey Rebellion (our first tax revolt) happening at the time of ratification, but slave revolts really scared the the shit out of Southerners and the white State militias were their defense.

There's a lot of history from back then that could be useful in the current debate.

https://rantt.com/2nd-amendment-and-slavery

And then...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2/second-amendment-doctrine-and-practice

United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1007 (1997) (member of Georgia unorganized militia unable to establish that his possession of machine guns and pipe bombs bore any connection to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia).

[elleng]

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm

unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. . .

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.'>>>

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

For those optimists among us, MAYBE recent events will constrain the Court from expanding rights outside of Heller's constraint, and affirm this: ' Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:'>>>

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. The last few lines are a quote from Scalia, if I'm not mistaken. NT

[Tickle]

3. Can't we take this

to the Supreme Court? Like now! I know the 9th circuit came back with an insane ruling but let’s keep it going.

[elleng]

5. This is FROM the Supreme Court.

We can and should remind them of what they've said in the past.

[hack89]

4. The founders simply copied most of the English Bill of Rights from 1689

When they said that the king was trampling their rights as Englishmen, did you ever consider exactly what those rights were? Turns out they had a Bill of Rights - a law that laid out basic civil rights for all Englishmen and was a critical step in the development of parliamentary rule.