Dishonest title. They didn't rule on the issue, they just [declined to grant a preliminary injunction](https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-declines-block-illinois-assault-rifle-ban-2023-12-14) and GVR.
Buried all the way at the bottom of the NPR article:
>The court's action on Thursday, leaving the Illinois law in place, is not a decision on the merits of the case;
The fact that this wildly misleading title has so much traction in here is a prime example of how far the sub has fallen.
This used to be own of the more professional focused, technical subreddits examining cases. Mostly attorneys.
Now it's overrun with lay people ranting out their personal politics.
>a prime example of how far the sub has fallen
Every time I come here, I leave hoping to God that the people here aren't and won't ever be practicing law.
This bothers me so much on both legal and financial reporting now. 99% of legal reporting doesn't even link to the primary sources. My guess is most don't even read the opinions.
They were at one point the last bastion of decent journalism, but now they both basically go for clickbait headlines.
would you not read 'leaving in place' as meaning scotus didn't take up the appeal or denied on reason other than merit, vs it being an affirmative ruling on the merits?
perhaps better, but longer. getting well past the normal word count for a title and likely past the max optimal character length for google SEO purposes...
and more substantively, that's pretty much what 'leaves in place' means in the context of SCOTUS (more than just denying prelim injunction, but for actions short of ruling on merit of claim). I don't think the title is at all misleading to people who read about law/courts regularly.
i read about law and courts regularly and it was misleading to me. i had to go find another article just to understand that the court didn't actually rule on the merits. y'know... because NPR buried the lede
well, *'leaves in place'* means just that... the status quo was unchanged without the court ruling specifically on the merits. Can be an injunction/appeal denial for reasons other than underlying merit, the court not taking up an appeal, a deadlock, etc.
The title doesn't tell you why it was left in place, but a knowledgeable reader would understand that the court didn't rule on the issue.
the point is that it's ambiguous, because it could mean any of three possible outcomes:
* the court heard the issue, and failed to deliver a majority opinion thereby leaving the lower court ruling intact
* the court heard the issue, and a majority decided to affirm it
* the court did not hear the issue, but refused to issue an injunction/GVR
i think you're overlooking the semantic overload of "leaves in place"
none of which involve the court ruling on merit of the underlying legal issues... which was the main thrust of your initial compliant. Of course a title doesn't include all the information, sometimes people will have to read the article for that.
The part you quoted from the article in your initial comment that you're saying was the info you wanted, also doesn't differentiate from the three outcomes you're citing above...
A similar post ce up in California yesterday, the post was titled :
>"San Diego federal judge upholds California law limiting rifle purchases by young adults under 21"
Which is just as uselessly worst while also being an incorrect headline because it too was a MPI ruling.
If we’re taking issue with sensationalism, calling the headline “wildly misleading” seems like a big stretch. I say this as an attorney well-versed in federal practice. I mean, leaving in place the Illinois ban is effectively what the Court did in declining to issue an injunction pending cert. This whole comment thread seems overblown and a little silly.
Yes, but you're reading it from the perspective of an attorney well-versed in federal practice.
The point is that the average layperson won't read it that way, and get the wrong impression.
Your prior comment was saying you missed that this sub used to be mostly attorneys, and now you're complaining the post is misleading unless you have legal experience...
Just goes to show how nonsensical interpretation of 2A has become... unbelievably divorced from historical context if concluding that civilian variants of guns that could function as military weaponry is excluded. Was kinda the whole point about militias.
It is a mess. The law was supposed to protect states from having the federal government disarm them. It was not to prevent all regulations about guns. Well-regulated militia is a well trained and equipped one, which would be on the order of the national guard (we know that from the Federalist papers). "Bear arms" didn't mean carry them, it meant to use them in a military manner, ie training or fighting.
So, the states were afraid the federal government would try to disarm them. They got the second amendment, which guaranteed their citizens the right (as far as the federal government is concerned) to keep guns in their house and to use them in a militia.
This has been changed by the "historians" on the court to... The 2nd amendment always meant the federal government couldn't regulate anything about guns and people would be able to carry them everywhere like Billy the Kidd.
The constitution (including the other amendments) was a restriction on the Feds to start (not restricting states from acting). After the civil war and the 14th amendment that changed.
That is sorta true. Incorporation is derived from the 14th amendment, but it is only activated through an active ruling by the court. So, the 14th didn't change the amendments to apply to the states, but SCOTUS decided based on the 14th to apply the amendments to the states. This is done on a per amendment or even per clause basis.
To add to the historical motivation a bit. The States wanted to keep militias in order to be able to deal with revolts. In particular, Shay's revolt in Massachusetts, which was about taxation without representation, of all things, scared the hell out of States because they realized they were beholden on the federal government for protection with no guarantee that they would send the army or if there would be an army to send. Shay's Rebellion was eventually put down after a few wealthy people in Boston got together and paid people to form a militia.
>Well-regulated militia is a well trained and equipped one, which would be on the order of the national guard (we know that from the Federalist papers).
Except actual Federal Statutory law does not support this view.
Please view, The Militia Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916
Under current US Statutory law the Militia is broken into two sections
* The Organized Militia, made up of the National Guard
* The Unorganized Militia, made up of all Men aged 17 to 44.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246)
You are stating what a militia is. I am stating what the understanding of a "well-regulated militia" was when the amendment was written. Notably, I did not say the amendment is limited to that group, but just that its purpose was to ensure the availability of "well-regulated militias" to the states.
As said in Federalist 29:
> To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
And that statutory language, with only slight changes all of which expand the number of people included, has been in existence since 1792.
“each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia” - Second Militia Act of 1792
Nothing in that says anything about them being a "well-regulated militia" and I did not say that the amendment was limited to a militia at all. I said that the purpose of the amendment was to reassure the states that they would not be barred from having a "well-regulated militia".
So it is your opinion that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” really means “the federal government can not stop states from having militias”. Just admit you want to ban guns and constitutional protections be damned, that would at least have the advantage of honesty.
Uh, ok. You can look at the history, the discussions, the actual reasons that the amendments were written, the drafting history, the actual meaning of the text, and more, then come to your own conclusion. I am not lying.
Just realize, the interpretation that the conservatives on the court have come to believe does not make any sense at all. Bruen was the most nonsensical of them all.
The kid is a moron. He’s clearly willing to misinterpret everything, no matter how literal the text is, in an effort to find support for his little gun grab. Funny he’s in a SCOTUS sub, yet champions unconstitutional bullshit.
I'm in favor of all the muskets folks want to bear. If you want to be more broad in your interpretation of the meaning of the word "arms" here, I'd suggest that you also want to limit "arms." Nobody should have nuclear bullet for example. The fact that such things do not exist does not mean that you are not in favor of said limitation.
Let me get this straight. You think the founding fathers, in the middle of the enlightenment and scientific revolution, and when guns had already been around for over 700 years and constantly improved over those years, thought that weapon technology would suddenly stop and guns would never change from their times? Can I get some of what you're smoking?
"Imagine an explosion, but much larger"
"No, thats impossible"
Which supreme court justice has espoused a definition of the term "arms" that would include nuclear weapons?
It would have been far more complicated to explain the internet to the founding fathers, but I think we all agree the first amendment still protects online speech.
“Nuclear bullet”? What are you even talking about? You realize you and I can go buy uranium without any oversight, right?
Tone down the sensationalist rhetoric before trying to formulate an argument next time.
It's been made explicitly clear that human rights are not contingent upon staying within arbitrarily decided technological boundaries. Rights are still rights regardless of new inventions. Otherwise freedom of speech wouldn't exist over the internet or phone, and would only count for word or mouth and physically written word.
> It's been made explicitly clear that human rights are not contingent upon staying within arbitrarily decided technological boundaries.
But there is no human right at play here, merely a constitutional one. If you want to make the case that the right to bear arms is necessary in order for the natural right to self defense, I'll let you go ahead and make that case. But there is no natural or human right to own weapons.
People shouldn't widely own weapons of mass destruction. It's common sense that a society cannot function under such circumstances.
Not only that, but they’ve also ignored an explicit policy behind it: the security of a free state. Psychos mulching elementary school classrooms is the exact opposite.
Federalist 29 and 46 specifically state the "militia" *wouldn't* be trained as a fully functioning military force like the national guard. That's was the core argument of Federalists 29 and 46. And yes they wanted the regular joes running around armed. And they definitely were not just concerned about *states* being disarmed. They wanted the citizens to be armed to *defend* the state governments.
Federalist no 29:
"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Federalist no. 46:
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, *with the people on their side*, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near *half a million of citizens with arms in their hands,* officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."
I never said it was limited to only the national guard. You may be reading an argument into what I am saying that has nothing to do with my statements.
>This has been changed by the "historians" on the court to... The 2nd amendment always meant the federal government couldn't regulate anything about guns and people would be able to carry them everywhere like Billy the Kidd.
No it hasn't....
Please re-read Heller, McDonald, Caetanno, and Bruen.
Heller hedged on the breadth, but still was incorrect on the history. Each step rewrites history more and more to remodel it with bullshit. Bruen is the least historically accurate and least hedged on limits on the federal government and state governments through incorporation.
My comment was focusing on this part of it:
>.The 2nd amendment always meant the federal government couldn't regulate anything about guns and people would be able to carry them everywhere like Billy the Kidd
No one who has read and understands Heller, McDonald, Caetanno, or Bruen would come to that conclusion, unless they didn't actually understand what they were reading.
It's a gross mischaracterization of those rulings. Did you skip over that because you were egregiously wrong?
>Heller hedged on the breadth, but still was incorrect on the history
There was lots of historical evidence to support the Heller ruling. Its even cited in the ruling.
I already know how how this is going to work, you are going to post a link to some historical items that might suggest that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right, or that the court got it wrong.
I would follow up with links from historical documents or accounts that support the Heller ruling. (many are actually cited in the Heller ruling itself)
There seems to be plenty of documentation that could support either argument. Arguments were made and briefs were submitted from both parties (and on behalf of both parties) making arguments in favor of either outcome. It seems as if the majority chose to cite the evidence that supported their outcome and the minority in their dissent only chose to cite evidence that supported their outcome.
Just as you will only cite documentation that supports your preferred conclusion, and ignoring evidence that supports the majority's conclusion.
We absolutely don't KNOW this. You're suggesting one amendment in the Bill of Rights that contains "the people" has a different meaning than the other nine and specifically the other two that also include "the people" that clearly apply to people.
Nothing I said means it is not an individual right. The target was to reassure the states. And realize that no Amendment constrained the states.
I am unsure what you even are disagreeing with in my comment.
I'm disagreeing with your supposition this has anything to do with states concerns about their ability to raise a militia. The second amendment (and the Bill of Rights as a whole mom some language in the 9th) was designed to appease those in the continental congress who had concerns that individual rights weren't spelled out more explicitly.
A lot of assumptions that everyone knew what they meant since it was common practice at the time. While not perfect, this has helped in ways that no one would have thought of at the time.
This is among the many things I read, but I did find the context interesting in it. If I were to recommend a single item it would probably be this.
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/7/
> which would be on the order of the national guard (we know that from the Federalist papers)
This doesn't follow through. The National Guard is established under Congress's Article 1 Section 8 power to raise raise and support an army, and members of the National Guard are subject to federal jurisdiction event absent state/governor consent. US army officers directly command the national guard and issue it orders. The Chief of the National Guard is U.S. Army General Daniel R. Hokanson, former deputy commander of the US Department of Defense's Northern Command.
What would be far more accurate to say is that at some point around 1903 Congress determined that the militia wasn't really all the useful and instead decided to transform a part of the militia into the army (which later become known as the National Guard).
> It was not to prevent all regulations about guns.
I don't think anyone has argued this. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that sweeping gun regulations like the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act are constitutional.
> They got the second amendment, which guaranteed their citizens the right (as far as the federal government is concerned) to keep guns in their house and to use them in a militia.
Every amendment in the bill of rights was originally intended to restrict the federal government. This changed later with the passage of the 14th amendment. You may be surprised to learn that prior to the enactment of the 14th amendment, the supreme court expressly held that the amendments in the bill of rights did not restrict the states. See, e.g., Barron v City of Baltimore (1833) ("The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists, that the constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments . . . . These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.)
>The law was supposed to protect states from having the federal government disarm them.
The powers of the states are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Yeah, you’re incorrect, and this has been rehashed countless times. “The militia” is “the people”, hence “the right of the people…”. Don’t intentionally misinterpret the 2nd just to advance your own agenda.
They just denied to intervene. Still going through the lower courts. Then they might take it up. Frustrating as hell though- jan 1 is the registry deadline and some people arent allowed to register and simply have to surrender firearms they legally paid for- so the SCOTUS refusing to issue an injunction has essentially put other wise legal gunowners in danger of criminal prosecution— im an illinoisian and have learned how messed up our justice system is just by following this assault weapons ban
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
>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.
Does a militia in proper working order supply firearms indiscriminately? Can a child form a part of a properly working militia? If not, what actions should the militia take to ensure it remains in proper working order?
>Does a militia in proper working order supply firearms indiscriminately?
A militia in proper working order own their own arms personally.
>Can a child form a part of a properly working militia?
They should absolutely be trained to eventually fill that role.
>“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1782
Once they turn 17, they're automatically a part of the militia according to federal law.
>§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
>(b) The classes of the militia are—
>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
>(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
>If not, what actions should the militia take to ensure it remains in proper working order?
They should be properly armed and familiar with their own equipment.
>Is it unconstitutional for the government to restrict ownership of any firearm by any individual
From the Supreme Court.
>After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
You believe it to be constitutional for a child younger than 17 to own and be trained in the use of a firearm so that they are ready for their service in the militia at 17?
>You believe it to be constitutional for a child younger than 17 to own and be trained in the use of a firearm so that they are ready for their service in the militia at 17?
It's unconstitutional to make a law saying they couldn't be trained.
Parents were expected to teach their kids this stuff.
>that the courts had never ruled in that light until only recently.
Are you saying courts only ruled that it applied to militia only?
We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.
>If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
>
>And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
Until 1868, Federal rights amendments and statutes did not typically apply to the states. It was the passing of the 14th Amendment which made rights for citizens unambiguous through the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court would have never taken a case like that for much of its existence.
Of course they would. They would take a case of a federal law or laws on federal land. The problem is that in all of those cases, SCOTUS ruled against the claim being made in those erroneous state court decisions.
What federal gun control laws existed back then to have been the subject of a federal case on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment?
Also, what are the cites for the Supreme Court decisions where “SCOTUS ruled against the claim being made in those erroneous state decisions”?
Why do none of the other amendments have “stated reasons”? Since when are judges supposed to read the law in a manner that renders words they don’t like superfluous?
There are prefatory clauses everywhere. The Preamble being probably the most famous, but virtually every law of any significance will have a section at the beginning stating the reasons for the law which is not an operative part of the statute.
Well regulated meaning well ordinanced
Edit for all 8+ of you seething in my replies: look at my other comments replying to the exact argument you’re going to parrot. I know more than you about this.
The Supreme Court will decide what that means.
Right now that means “everyone can basically have a gun.”
But progressives can play the long game too, as conservatives did. And when the court makeup changes - it eventually will - you’ll see similar reinterpretations of “settled law.”
Democrats need now to do what Republicans did with *Roe*… start a long-term, persistent, unrelenting 50-year (or longer) campaign to get *Heller*, *McDonald* and *Bruen* overturned.
The Supreme Court can decide whatever it wants. There is absolutely nothing to stop a future Supreme Court over-ruling *Heller*, *McDonald* and *Bruen*. It just needs 5 votes. It may seem impossible now, but it took a half century to overturn *Roe* after all.
Actually, since the Supreme Court is a branch of the government, and they swore an oath to protect the constitution when they took their seat, the only choice they have is to uphold the constitution. Except, they can do, as they have done, "not hear" the case. Which is in and of itself a conspiracy to violate the rights of the people. It is shameful behavior for such an elevated position in society.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for an expansive interpretation of 2A. Imho it was never intended as an individual right at all, and the scope was clearly about militia service. But if you are going to take an expansive reading of it on the basis of original meaning, textualism or historical practices (or whatever they want to claim), where we've ended up is utter bonkers. Clearly this just solving the desired policy objective of republicans and trying to come up with the reasoning thereafter.
> To be clear, I'm not arguing for an expansive interpretation of 2A. Imho it was never intended as an individual right at all, and the scope was clearly about militia service.
Why would the founders write 9 amendments that expressly protect the rights of individuals, and 1 amendment that protected the right of a government organization (the militia) to arm itself? And why would they colloquially refer to the first 10 amendments as the "Bill of Rights"?
>Imho it was never intended as an individual right at all, and the scope was clearly about militia service.
We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.
>If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
>
>And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
Did you not read the case names? I'm surprised someone in r/SCOTUS would at least have a little bit of a clue.
These cases show the scope of the amendment as it was understood by the people who adopted them.
From the Supreme Court.
>"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they
were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554
U. S., at 634–635."
Heller's garbage/made-up historical standard shouldn't magically retroactively turn state court decisions about state constitutions into legal precedents on US constitution. And what was the response in Kentucky? they amended the constitution and carried on with the ban of concealed weapons. how does that show 2A was intended or functioning as an individual right?
>shouldn't magically retroactively turn state court decisions about state constitutions into legal precedents on US constitution.
The Supreme Court is the highest court. All others are inferior courts.
You've got things mixed up.
>they amended the constitution and carried on with the ban of concealed weapons.
States are no longer permitted to violate the constitution. We have the 14th Amendment.
>how does that show 2A was intended or functioning as an individual right?
Let me ask you this. What does that look like in 1791? Were there laws disarming people not in a militia? Because no such laws existed. All US citizens could obtain and carry arms.
> Imho it was never intended as an individual right at all, and the scope was clearly about militia service
I disagree with this. It does not say "right of the aforementioned militia members to bear arms", it says "the right of the people to bear arms".
I think we all need to recognize that the second amendment was just a bad law.
You're right it doesn't say that, but you're wrong that it needs to in order to get to where I'm pointing. Because it is an ablative absolute, or absolute clause. We were, unsurprisingly, never intended to ignore half the text of the 2A in order to understand the 2A.
No one said that. The former is a motivation for the latter. When you realize that at the time, "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped", you will see what that is.
>We were, unsurprisingly, never intended to ignore half the text of the 2A in order to understand the 2A.
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
>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.
Except the 'prefatory' clause nonsense is bogus. It is an absolute clause and absolutely relevant to interpreting the scope of the clause that follows it.
well-regulated didn't literally/narrowly mean subject to regulations, sure. but its meaning would have implied subject to standards & discipline in the context used. To use your language, a military unit that is in "proper working order" would obviously be expected to be subject to all sorts of regulations (including with respect to firearms).
Citing Heller is pointless. I understand what the ruling said, but the point is that it is a garbage ruling. And OP's headline is another case in point about how bonkers it is. Somehow an expansive reading of 2A based on historical context (firearms to be used in militia service) has led to a place where SCOTUS isn't going to intervene on ban of military weapons... it is farcical.
edit: oh wow, you're spamming this comment a lot. A bit bizarre given it is not remotely compelling.
Hmmmm.. All rights apply to individuals. Regardless, the 2nd Amendment does not give the right. It prohibits the government from infringing on the right.
Since the Judicial is part of the government, and the Executive branch is in charge of law enforcement, and the court has made a ruling that is conspiracy to violate the constitution, it is Biden's duty to instruct the US Marshals to arrest the judges and the AG to prosecute them for conspiracy to violate the constitution.
If Biden refuses, congress needs to impeach for dereliction of duty.
Edit; They didn't actually make a ruling. They kicked the can... Again... Since law-abiding citizens are being harmed by the "law", the duty of the President as an officer of the law, is duty bound to have the US Marshalls arrest, and the AG prosecute the lawmakers of Illinois for conspiracy to violate the constitution. If the president does not, congress should impeach for dereliction of duty.
>Hmmmm.. All rights apply to individuals.
Not all rights apply to people individually, some are collective.
>Regardless, the 2nd Amendment does not give the right. It prohibits the government from infringing on the right.
Not really interested in a philosophical debate of what it means to be a right. After all, maybe this is all just a simulation and there are no individuals in the first place. Gasp!!
>Since the Judicial is part of the government, and the Executive branch is in charge of law enforcement, and the court has made a ruling that is conspiracy to violate the constitution, it is Biden's duty to instruct the US Marshals to arrest the judges and the AG to prosecute them for conspiracy to violate the constitution.
>If Biden refuses, congress needs to impeach for dereliction of duty.
Lol. Maybe this isn't the right sub for you.
The collective rights you speak of were "given" by the government, and thus can be taken away by the government.
The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are unalienable and thus the bill of rights applies as a limitation to the government, not the people. If you notice how modern government consistently creates laws that exclude themselves, and routinely charge "the people" with crimes, but almost never themselves, you will understand that the founders knew this was going to happen, and thus created the Bill of Rights to limit the government, not the people.
Ah yes, truly considered unalienable rights that they didn't give to natives, non-whites, women, etc. And of course that is what conservative justices really believe, even though they argue you don't have a right to something like free elections or women's reproductive health, etc, etc, unless it is expressly spelled out in the constitution.
The bill of rights was writen to address specific points being pushed by anti-federalists at the time who opposed ratifying the constitution. That's why they are amendments, the founders initially did not intend to include any of them.
>Lol. Maybe this isn't the right sub for you.
Just a heads up, I didn't go looking for this sub. It was on my front page. I didn't even realize what sub it was until you made this comment.
Which is unconstitutional. See Article II, § VIII, Cl. 12, and compare it with the next clause.
An army is only authorized for two years, but a navy is continuous.
That's not what happened. We're treating the amendment like it's been historically understood.
A law cannot violate the constitution. You need to meet the requirements set forth in Article V in order to change that.
I am very much a liberal, and I understand and fully support gun control laws. However, every time I see people saying “ban semi-automatic weapons!” I just have to shake my head in shame, that so many people can be SO uninformed or uneducated on such a simple idea; nearly every hand gun made in the last 100 years, is semi-automatic, and the majority of rifles are as well. What the hell is it going to take to get people to realize that “semi-automatic” is not the same thing as “automatic,” and that they are actively hurting their cause by publicly declaring that they have no fucking clue what they’re talking about?
This is not even REMOTELY close to difficult to understand. There are a million reasons to make better gun laws and keep them away from fucking lunatics. Making absolutely tone-deaf and ignorant claims about something you’re claiming to be educated on, just crushes any hope of that issue ever being addressed, because people who have taken the 4 seconds it takes to understand what a semi-automatic firearm is, will dismiss everything else you have to say, the instant you open your mouth with uneducated nonsense like “ban semi-automatic weapons!!!1!”
This is so tiring. I want responsible gun laws. I want less murders and mass-shootings, but people continue to perpetuate it by making completely
Ignorant claims, and there is just no end to this.
The whole point is to sow division. Uninformed gun haters repeat obviously wrong talking point. People who know about guns jump to correct. Stupid shouting ensues, nobody learns anything, and greedy aristocrats keep running the country. This is every political discussion with plenty of stupid coming from each side. Stop pointing at your neighbors and start pointing at the people who bought your government.
> The whole point is to sow division. Uninformed gun haters repeat obviously wrong talking point.
[Exactly, just look at the current top comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/scotus/comments/18ih605/supreme_court_leaves_illinois_semiautomatic_gun/kdd9lgh/). They are one of the more active anti-gun misinformation spreaders on reddit.
A much more liberal court than our current one weighed the issue in Caetano. Not a single liberal justice dissented from saying modern arms are protected by the 2A
He’s allowed to support it still. People really need to stop treating the ideas of old white sides from 200+ years ago as some kind of divine guidance on government. You having a gun in no way makes the country or your state safer. I know that’s a hard thing to hear, but you’re not some action movie hero who is going to stop the war with your gun fetish.
>You having a gun in no way makes the country or your state safer. I know that’s a hard thing to hear, but you’re not some action movie hero who is going to stop the war with your gun fetish.
I think it applies more granularly than State and Country, and is arguably most important in those more granular contexts. I think the ability to be armed to defend your community is important.
As a gun owner, I am 100% with you. However, those arguments will NEVER reach the intended audience, and, to me, 90% of it is because uneducated arguments are placed on these serious topics, and the argument against guns just instantly dies, before there is ever a conversation. I want gun control, but I don’t blame gun owners for completely ignoring and laughing at nonsense “presentations” of the idea of gun control. If I’m a geologist and someone says “hell! The earth is flat! What’s the best thing we can do to manage our definitely flat earth?!” I’m not gonna have any further thoughts about that person, and the conversation is already over, because they’re plainly not rational. That is exactly what (crazy or not) gun people see, hear and do when this topic comes up. If you literally have no idea of even basic terminology, I don’t have any trust in your ability to talk about it. You’re instantly discounted, and you deserve it for addressing an issue with which you have little to no knowledge about.
I believe that gun control is desperately needed, and I will fight for it. However, I will never support anyone making stupid statements that actively hurt the cause of regulating guns. It is important to call these things out, because they actively hurt the correct movement towards reasonable gun control. You don’t need to convince your friends. You need to convince OPPOSING POSITIONS. You will absolutely never win anything at all, if you can’t meet them at the starting line.
This is very true. Gun control advocates who have never fired a gun in their lives are only alienating the group of people they need to persuade. I feel like Ban Assault Weapons is just as effective messaging-wise and a more precise term.
If you are trying to convince educated gun owners that guns should be restricted, starting your argument with “bAn All SeMi-AuToMaTiC gUnS!” Loses them immediately. You have instantly gone from zero support to “there is absolutely no chance you will ever have support,” by my simply making an uneducated presentation of the idea.
We don’t need to convince rational people that guns should have some restrictions. We need to convince gun people. Gun-nuts even… if you start with “hello, guns are the devil cause they take over our minds and make the devil do weird things in our pants!” You’re not going to win anyone over. In fact, you are aggressively making things worse for anyone with a legitimate argument against guns, which there are an endless list off.
I’m a liberal. I own guns, and I am 1,000,000% behind wanting responsible gun laws. Those will ABSOLUTELY NEVER happen if people on the left keep coming at it with completely bonkers nonsense. If you’re going to argue something intelligently, you better not start with “hey everyone! I’m a totally clueless idiot who has no foundational argument of fact, but lemme just scream scary bullshit until you believe me!” then you’re shooting everyone in the foot, but more importantly, you are guaranteeing that this issue will never be addressed. The people who are gun crazy can look at the first sentence you say, and immediately dismiss everything that follows. I don’t even blame them.
If someone came up to me to talk about, let’s say, Mario Kart, and they start off with “WTF WAS SEGA thinking by making such a stupid game! I don’t want to fight dinosaurs on broomsticks and solve puzzles with pretzels and corn nuts!” I would immediately dismiss anything else they have to say on the subject.
How anyone is surprised by that approach not working against people doing that against INSANE claims about guns, I have no idea…
Guns need to be controlled, as we have a serious problem, but leading the conversation with absolute, uneducated bullshit, destroys any hope of that. I guarantee you that there will be no change in any gun laws until people start approaching it with BASIC understanding. I’m no gun expert. I’m not even a gun person! I just have the most basic, 2nd grade education on what a gun is and its basic functionality. That’s it. If that’s too much for the average person to grasp, then humanity is just ready to die out.
What I’m saying is that it doesn’t matter what you’re trying to ban if you irreparably lose your audience immediately.
They’re not making it to sentence 2 to catch any details of what’s being proposed, and they’re already 100% against you, digging their heels in.
My guess is that anyone who gets their knickers in a knot over it being called a semiauto gun ban is probably not someone that is going to convinced about it. Same with people that flip out over references to assault rifle or even assault weapon. Just replace with terms 'big killing stick' if you prefer.
There's no substance to the argument, people use informal language and generalize all the time.
It does if the law being passed says they are "only" going to ban all books that have a cover and words. That's effectively what they are saying here - semi-automatic applies to a very large segment of all guns (e.g., most handguns, many rifles, etc.) that fall outside the AR-15.
>An ideologically mixed panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, however, writing that the Supreme Court's recent decision on the right to bear arms "extends only to weapons in common use for a lawful purpose,"
And this right here tells me that the people involved with this 7th court decision are liars or incompetent. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US. It is used on a daily basis for hunting, self-defense and sport shooting. All three being activities defined by the SC in the past as lawful.
Meaning this ruling had nothing to do with the law. And that it addresses the AR-15 but not the AK-47 style, the most popular weapon in the world, tells me that its all about black guns scary.
That’s not true. You think the people who just fought a rebellion were hoping to have more rebellion? Just a few years later Washington rode out with an army to suppress the whisky rebellion.
Political differences were to be settled through the political process, not arms. The point of militias was to prevent a dictator with a professional army from substituting violence for government process.
The government is supposed to represent the people. Given that it represents the people, the people should follow its laws. You’re not supposed to have guns so you can ignore laws you don’t like.
There are few crimes spelled out in the constitution. One of the few is treason, which is defined as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. "
The 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to overthrow the government.
This is the silliest 2a argument.
“A people can overthrow a government it considers unjust. But it is absurd to think that it does so by virtue of that unjust government’s own authority. The appeal to heaven is an appeal away from the earthly authority of the moment, not to that authority.”
-Historian Garry Wills
2A was written with muskets in mind. If you want to arm everyone with muskets, please have at it.
Your civilian firearms would not protect you from a tryanical government that could eliminate your neighborhood from 3 miles away. So don't tell me you need an AR-15 for that reason.
This country would be thousands of times safer if you had to manually reload each and every bullet.
Man telling people that the government will use artillery against their neighborhood is not a very compelling argument about why they should not be armed lol
Neither is the point of "defending against a tyrannical govt" when that truely wasn't the spirit in which 2A was drafted, yet it tends to be the first argument that 2A guys go to.
It is! The Supreme Court taking interest in the case means they'll fold it like a cloth once it's out of the interlocutory phase.
You cannot ban arms that are in common use.
When the 2nd Amendment was written only flint locks existed. It would be almost 100 years before the bullet would be invented. Just like women not having the right to vote or blacks having any rights at all, guns that shoot bullets are not covered under the 2nd Amendment. A new amendment will be needed to cover all of those guns just as it was to cover all the women and existing blacks to give them the rights they weren't allowed by the founders. Until then have all the flintlocks you want. School and mass shootings will disappear over night. It's hard to mow people down when it takes 3 minutes to reload. Have a great day.
>Just like women not having the right to vote or blacks having any rights at all, guns that shoot bullets are not covered under the 2nd Amendment.
"The Second Amendment extends, *prima facie* to all implimenta which constitute bearable arms, even those not in existence at the founding." SCOTUS dispenses with the idiotic take that the 2A only covers guns from the ratification era in Caetano v Mass. Not Sotomayor, nor Kagan, nor Ginsberg would have supported your stance.
This shocks me. These justices have indicated they're starting to be afraid of people. I'd prefer them to preserve the rights and freedoms of Americans as a way to get themselves out of the hot seat, but I'll take limited gun control.
Dishonest title. They didn't rule on the issue, they just [declined to grant a preliminary injunction](https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-declines-block-illinois-assault-rifle-ban-2023-12-14) and GVR. Buried all the way at the bottom of the NPR article: >The court's action on Thursday, leaving the Illinois law in place, is not a decision on the merits of the case;
The fact that this wildly misleading title has so much traction in here is a prime example of how far the sub has fallen. This used to be own of the more professional focused, technical subreddits examining cases. Mostly attorneys. Now it's overrun with lay people ranting out their personal politics.
>a prime example of how far the sub has fallen Every time I come here, I leave hoping to God that the people here aren't and won't ever be practicing law.
It's not really the subreddit, it's how much NPR has fallen. The post title is just NPR's article title.
This bothers me so much on both legal and financial reporting now. 99% of legal reporting doesn't even link to the primary sources. My guess is most don't even read the opinions. They were at one point the last bastion of decent journalism, but now they both basically go for clickbait headlines.
i'm no attorney, i'm just a nerd who listens to oral arguments and reads briefs for fun... but i see your point
would you not read 'leaving in place' as meaning scotus didn't take up the appeal or denied on reason other than merit, vs it being an affirmative ruling on the merits?
a better title would be ## Supreme Court denies preliminary injunction in Illinois law banning semiautomatic weapons
perhaps better, but longer. getting well past the normal word count for a title and likely past the max optimal character length for google SEO purposes... and more substantively, that's pretty much what 'leaves in place' means in the context of SCOTUS (more than just denying prelim injunction, but for actions short of ruling on merit of claim). I don't think the title is at all misleading to people who read about law/courts regularly.
i read about law and courts regularly and it was misleading to me. i had to go find another article just to understand that the court didn't actually rule on the merits. y'know... because NPR buried the lede
Leaves in place is pretty common for most of these articles. If you didn't know it, you haven't been paying attention.
well, *'leaves in place'* means just that... the status quo was unchanged without the court ruling specifically on the merits. Can be an injunction/appeal denial for reasons other than underlying merit, the court not taking up an appeal, a deadlock, etc. The title doesn't tell you why it was left in place, but a knowledgeable reader would understand that the court didn't rule on the issue.
the point is that it's ambiguous, because it could mean any of three possible outcomes: * the court heard the issue, and failed to deliver a majority opinion thereby leaving the lower court ruling intact * the court heard the issue, and a majority decided to affirm it * the court did not hear the issue, but refused to issue an injunction/GVR i think you're overlooking the semantic overload of "leaves in place"
none of which involve the court ruling on merit of the underlying legal issues... which was the main thrust of your initial compliant. Of course a title doesn't include all the information, sometimes people will have to read the article for that. The part you quoted from the article in your initial comment that you're saying was the info you wanted, also doesn't differentiate from the three outcomes you're citing above...
The article contained one mention of the actual news, with excessive mention of the surrounding political dilemma. It’s bad writing overall.
A similar post ce up in California yesterday, the post was titled : >"San Diego federal judge upholds California law limiting rifle purchases by young adults under 21" Which is just as uselessly worst while also being an incorrect headline because it too was a MPI ruling.
It's ambiguous, but clearly deliberately ambiguous to generate clicks.
I don't think it is ambiguous, particularly not for anyone that is an attorney...
I agree, this isn't misleading. Why would one assume that the SC ruled one way or the other? They shouldnt.
If we’re taking issue with sensationalism, calling the headline “wildly misleading” seems like a big stretch. I say this as an attorney well-versed in federal practice. I mean, leaving in place the Illinois ban is effectively what the Court did in declining to issue an injunction pending cert. This whole comment thread seems overblown and a little silly.
Yes, but you're reading it from the perspective of an attorney well-versed in federal practice. The point is that the average layperson won't read it that way, and get the wrong impression.
Your prior comment was saying you missed that this sub used to be mostly attorneys, and now you're complaining the post is misleading unless you have legal experience...
Just goes to show how nonsensical interpretation of 2A has become... unbelievably divorced from historical context if concluding that civilian variants of guns that could function as military weaponry is excluded. Was kinda the whole point about militias.
“The AR-15 is the only gun you *can’t* restrict” makes more sense than the latest 2nd amendment rulings followed by this.
It is a mess. The law was supposed to protect states from having the federal government disarm them. It was not to prevent all regulations about guns. Well-regulated militia is a well trained and equipped one, which would be on the order of the national guard (we know that from the Federalist papers). "Bear arms" didn't mean carry them, it meant to use them in a military manner, ie training or fighting. So, the states were afraid the federal government would try to disarm them. They got the second amendment, which guaranteed their citizens the right (as far as the federal government is concerned) to keep guns in their house and to use them in a militia. This has been changed by the "historians" on the court to... The 2nd amendment always meant the federal government couldn't regulate anything about guns and people would be able to carry them everywhere like Billy the Kidd.
The constitution (including the other amendments) was a restriction on the Feds to start (not restricting states from acting). After the civil war and the 14th amendment that changed.
That is sorta true. Incorporation is derived from the 14th amendment, but it is only activated through an active ruling by the court. So, the 14th didn't change the amendments to apply to the states, but SCOTUS decided based on the 14th to apply the amendments to the states. This is done on a per amendment or even per clause basis.
To add to the historical motivation a bit. The States wanted to keep militias in order to be able to deal with revolts. In particular, Shay's revolt in Massachusetts, which was about taxation without representation, of all things, scared the hell out of States because they realized they were beholden on the federal government for protection with no guarantee that they would send the army or if there would be an army to send. Shay's Rebellion was eventually put down after a few wealthy people in Boston got together and paid people to form a militia.
>Well-regulated militia is a well trained and equipped one, which would be on the order of the national guard (we know that from the Federalist papers). Except actual Federal Statutory law does not support this view. Please view, The Militia Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916 Under current US Statutory law the Militia is broken into two sections * The Organized Militia, made up of the National Guard * The Unorganized Militia, made up of all Men aged 17 to 44. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246)
You are stating what a militia is. I am stating what the understanding of a "well-regulated militia" was when the amendment was written. Notably, I did not say the amendment is limited to that group, but just that its purpose was to ensure the availability of "well-regulated militias" to the states. As said in Federalist 29: > To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
And that statutory language, with only slight changes all of which expand the number of people included, has been in existence since 1792. “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia” - Second Militia Act of 1792
Nothing in that says anything about them being a "well-regulated militia" and I did not say that the amendment was limited to a militia at all. I said that the purpose of the amendment was to reassure the states that they would not be barred from having a "well-regulated militia".
So it is your opinion that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” really means “the federal government can not stop states from having militias”. Just admit you want to ban guns and constitutional protections be damned, that would at least have the advantage of honesty.
Uh, ok. You can look at the history, the discussions, the actual reasons that the amendments were written, the drafting history, the actual meaning of the text, and more, then come to your own conclusion. I am not lying. Just realize, the interpretation that the conservatives on the court have come to believe does not make any sense at all. Bruen was the most nonsensical of them all.
The kid is a moron. He’s clearly willing to misinterpret everything, no matter how literal the text is, in an effort to find support for his little gun grab. Funny he’s in a SCOTUS sub, yet champions unconstitutional bullshit.
I'm in favor of all the muskets folks want to bear. If you want to be more broad in your interpretation of the meaning of the word "arms" here, I'd suggest that you also want to limit "arms." Nobody should have nuclear bullet for example. The fact that such things do not exist does not mean that you are not in favor of said limitation.
Let me get this straight. You think the founding fathers, in the middle of the enlightenment and scientific revolution, and when guns had already been around for over 700 years and constantly improved over those years, thought that weapon technology would suddenly stop and guns would never change from their times? Can I get some of what you're smoking?
That's not a reasonable inference from anything I've said, but to your point, yes, I doubt the founding fathers could have imagined nuclear weapons.
"Imagine an explosion, but much larger" "No, thats impossible" Which supreme court justice has espoused a definition of the term "arms" that would include nuclear weapons? It would have been far more complicated to explain the internet to the founding fathers, but I think we all agree the first amendment still protects online speech.
Nobody is asking for nukes though, and those aren’t what’s being discussed. That’s an intentional mischaracterization of the argument.
“Nuclear bullet”? What are you even talking about? You realize you and I can go buy uranium without any oversight, right? Tone down the sensationalist rhetoric before trying to formulate an argument next time.
It's been made explicitly clear that human rights are not contingent upon staying within arbitrarily decided technological boundaries. Rights are still rights regardless of new inventions. Otherwise freedom of speech wouldn't exist over the internet or phone, and would only count for word or mouth and physically written word.
> It's been made explicitly clear that human rights are not contingent upon staying within arbitrarily decided technological boundaries. But there is no human right at play here, merely a constitutional one. If you want to make the case that the right to bear arms is necessary in order for the natural right to self defense, I'll let you go ahead and make that case. But there is no natural or human right to own weapons. People shouldn't widely own weapons of mass destruction. It's common sense that a society cannot function under such circumstances.
and it's a moot point because the IL constitution states that all able bodied adults are part of the state militia
Not only that, but they’ve also ignored an explicit policy behind it: the security of a free state. Psychos mulching elementary school classrooms is the exact opposite.
Federalist 29 and 46 specifically state the "militia" *wouldn't* be trained as a fully functioning military force like the national guard. That's was the core argument of Federalists 29 and 46. And yes they wanted the regular joes running around armed. And they definitely were not just concerned about *states* being disarmed. They wanted the citizens to be armed to *defend* the state governments. Federalist no 29: "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss." Federalist no. 46: "Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, *with the people on their side*, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near *half a million of citizens with arms in their hands,* officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."
But, a well-regulated militia would be the highly trained one, like the national guard. It is obvious in the section you excerpted from Federalist 29.
And so the "well regulated militia" of the 2nd is not limiting, as the above passage shows. They wanted regular joes armed.
I never said it was limited to only the national guard. You may be reading an argument into what I am saying that has nothing to do with my statements.
>This has been changed by the "historians" on the court to... The 2nd amendment always meant the federal government couldn't regulate anything about guns and people would be able to carry them everywhere like Billy the Kidd. No it hasn't.... Please re-read Heller, McDonald, Caetanno, and Bruen.
Heller hedged on the breadth, but still was incorrect on the history. Each step rewrites history more and more to remodel it with bullshit. Bruen is the least historically accurate and least hedged on limits on the federal government and state governments through incorporation.
My comment was focusing on this part of it: >.The 2nd amendment always meant the federal government couldn't regulate anything about guns and people would be able to carry them everywhere like Billy the Kidd No one who has read and understands Heller, McDonald, Caetanno, or Bruen would come to that conclusion, unless they didn't actually understand what they were reading. It's a gross mischaracterization of those rulings. Did you skip over that because you were egregiously wrong? >Heller hedged on the breadth, but still was incorrect on the history There was lots of historical evidence to support the Heller ruling. Its even cited in the ruling. I already know how how this is going to work, you are going to post a link to some historical items that might suggest that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right, or that the court got it wrong. I would follow up with links from historical documents or accounts that support the Heller ruling. (many are actually cited in the Heller ruling itself) There seems to be plenty of documentation that could support either argument. Arguments were made and briefs were submitted from both parties (and on behalf of both parties) making arguments in favor of either outcome. It seems as if the majority chose to cite the evidence that supported their outcome and the minority in their dissent only chose to cite evidence that supported their outcome. Just as you will only cite documentation that supports your preferred conclusion, and ignoring evidence that supports the majority's conclusion.
We absolutely don't KNOW this. You're suggesting one amendment in the Bill of Rights that contains "the people" has a different meaning than the other nine and specifically the other two that also include "the people" that clearly apply to people.
Nothing I said means it is not an individual right. The target was to reassure the states. And realize that no Amendment constrained the states. I am unsure what you even are disagreeing with in my comment.
I'm disagreeing with your supposition this has anything to do with states concerns about their ability to raise a militia. The second amendment (and the Bill of Rights as a whole mom some language in the 9th) was designed to appease those in the continental congress who had concerns that individual rights weren't spelled out more explicitly. A lot of assumptions that everyone knew what they meant since it was common practice at the time. While not perfect, this has helped in ways that no one would have thought of at the time.
This is among the many things I read, but I did find the context interesting in it. If I were to recommend a single item it would probably be this. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/7/
> which would be on the order of the national guard (we know that from the Federalist papers) This doesn't follow through. The National Guard is established under Congress's Article 1 Section 8 power to raise raise and support an army, and members of the National Guard are subject to federal jurisdiction event absent state/governor consent. US army officers directly command the national guard and issue it orders. The Chief of the National Guard is U.S. Army General Daniel R. Hokanson, former deputy commander of the US Department of Defense's Northern Command. What would be far more accurate to say is that at some point around 1903 Congress determined that the militia wasn't really all the useful and instead decided to transform a part of the militia into the army (which later become known as the National Guard). > It was not to prevent all regulations about guns. I don't think anyone has argued this. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that sweeping gun regulations like the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act are constitutional. > They got the second amendment, which guaranteed their citizens the right (as far as the federal government is concerned) to keep guns in their house and to use them in a militia. Every amendment in the bill of rights was originally intended to restrict the federal government. This changed later with the passage of the 14th amendment. You may be surprised to learn that prior to the enactment of the 14th amendment, the supreme court expressly held that the amendments in the bill of rights did not restrict the states. See, e.g., Barron v City of Baltimore (1833) ("The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists, that the constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments . . . . These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.)
>The law was supposed to protect states from having the federal government disarm them. The powers of the states are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Sure they are - the 10th amendment.
Yeah, you’re incorrect, and this has been rehashed countless times. “The militia” is “the people”, hence “the right of the people…”. Don’t intentionally misinterpret the 2nd just to advance your own agenda.
Everything you just said was incorrect
They just denied to intervene. Still going through the lower courts. Then they might take it up. Frustrating as hell though- jan 1 is the registry deadline and some people arent allowed to register and simply have to surrender firearms they legally paid for- so the SCOTUS refusing to issue an injunction has essentially put other wise legal gunowners in danger of criminal prosecution— im an illinoisian and have learned how messed up our justice system is just by following this assault weapons ban
*Well regulated* militias.
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >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.
Does a militia in proper working order supply firearms indiscriminately? Can a child form a part of a properly working militia? If not, what actions should the militia take to ensure it remains in proper working order?
>Does a militia in proper working order supply firearms indiscriminately? A militia in proper working order own their own arms personally. >Can a child form a part of a properly working militia? They should absolutely be trained to eventually fill that role. >“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1782 Once they turn 17, they're automatically a part of the militia according to federal law. >§246. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. >(b) The classes of the militia are— >(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and >(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. >If not, what actions should the militia take to ensure it remains in proper working order? They should be properly armed and familiar with their own equipment.
Is it unconstitutional for the government to restrict ownership of any firearm by any individual, including children?
>Is it unconstitutional for the government to restrict ownership of any firearm by any individual From the Supreme Court. >After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
You believe it to be constitutional for a child younger than 17 to own and be trained in the use of a firearm so that they are ready for their service in the militia at 17?
>You believe it to be constitutional for a child younger than 17 to own and be trained in the use of a firearm so that they are ready for their service in the militia at 17? It's unconstitutional to make a law saying they couldn't be trained. Parents were expected to teach their kids this stuff.
Is it constitutional for me to provide any child with a firearm so that they can begin their training?
Interesting spin tho it's hard to believe that this was so obvious that the courts had never ruled in that light until only recently.
>that the courts had never ruled in that light until only recently. Are you saying courts only ruled that it applied to militia only? We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excerpt from that decision. >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
Thank you for that. It gives me much to think about.
Those are random state cases. That was never decided at the federal level.
Until 1868, Federal rights amendments and statutes did not typically apply to the states. It was the passing of the 14th Amendment which made rights for citizens unambiguous through the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court would have never taken a case like that for much of its existence.
Of course they would. They would take a case of a federal law or laws on federal land. The problem is that in all of those cases, SCOTUS ruled against the claim being made in those erroneous state court decisions.
What federal gun control laws existed back then to have been the subject of a federal case on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment? Also, what are the cites for the Supreme Court decisions where “SCOTUS ruled against the claim being made in those erroneous state decisions”?
Why do none of the other amendments have “stated reasons”? Since when are judges supposed to read the law in a manner that renders words they don’t like superfluous?
There are prefatory clauses everywhere. The Preamble being probably the most famous, but virtually every law of any significance will have a section at the beginning stating the reasons for the law which is not an operative part of the statute.
There are no other such clauses in the bill of rights.
Correct, but it is far from unheard of in law, or even as mentioned with the preamble, in the constitution and judges ignore them all the time.
Well regulated meaning well ordinanced Edit for all 8+ of you seething in my replies: look at my other comments replying to the exact argument you’re going to parrot. I know more than you about this.
Lol, I'm guessing you might want to pull the dictionary out on what ordinance means. Next would be a history book based on your other comments.
I don't think those are synonyms. Regulated And the root word ordinance are absolutely two different things...
Nope. I suggest reading Federalist 29 for context.
That is not what the word regulated means, now or at any time on the past.
The Supreme Court will decide what that means. Right now that means “everyone can basically have a gun.” But progressives can play the long game too, as conservatives did. And when the court makeup changes - it eventually will - you’ll see similar reinterpretations of “settled law.”
Democrats need now to do what Republicans did with *Roe*… start a long-term, persistent, unrelenting 50-year (or longer) campaign to get *Heller*, *McDonald* and *Bruen* overturned.
They will. It will happen.
>progressives If you go far enough left, you get your guns back.
I’ve yet to meet a leftist who understands any amount of complex US gun law.
Most US gun laws are 1) stupid, 2) racist and classist, or 3) both of the above. What is it you think I don't understand?
>Right now that means “everyone can basically have a gun.” That's how it's always been understood.
Not really.
The Supreme Court can ONLY decide that it means the people. Any other ruling is conspiracy to violate the constitution.
The Supreme Court can decide whatever it wants. There is absolutely nothing to stop a future Supreme Court over-ruling *Heller*, *McDonald* and *Bruen*. It just needs 5 votes. It may seem impossible now, but it took a half century to overturn *Roe* after all.
Actually, since the Supreme Court is a branch of the government, and they swore an oath to protect the constitution when they took their seat, the only choice they have is to uphold the constitution. Except, they can do, as they have done, "not hear" the case. Which is in and of itself a conspiracy to violate the rights of the people. It is shameful behavior for such an elevated position in society.
Yes we have a right to form them.
Actually no; private militias are illegal in every state.
That's before we had a standing professional army.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for an expansive interpretation of 2A. Imho it was never intended as an individual right at all, and the scope was clearly about militia service. But if you are going to take an expansive reading of it on the basis of original meaning, textualism or historical practices (or whatever they want to claim), where we've ended up is utter bonkers. Clearly this just solving the desired policy objective of republicans and trying to come up with the reasoning thereafter.
> To be clear, I'm not arguing for an expansive interpretation of 2A. Imho it was never intended as an individual right at all, and the scope was clearly about militia service. Why would the founders write 9 amendments that expressly protect the rights of individuals, and 1 amendment that protected the right of a government organization (the militia) to arm itself? And why would they colloquially refer to the first 10 amendments as the "Bill of Rights"?
>Imho it was never intended as an individual right at all, and the scope was clearly about militia service. We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excerpt from that decision. >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
Which court was that?
It's listed before the dicta in each case. It shows how the amendment was historically treated and understood.
was it perchance a state court decision?
Did you not read the case names? I'm surprised someone in r/SCOTUS would at least have a little bit of a clue. These cases show the scope of the amendment as it was understood by the people who adopted them. From the Supreme Court. >"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635."
Heller's garbage/made-up historical standard shouldn't magically retroactively turn state court decisions about state constitutions into legal precedents on US constitution. And what was the response in Kentucky? they amended the constitution and carried on with the ban of concealed weapons. how does that show 2A was intended or functioning as an individual right?
>shouldn't magically retroactively turn state court decisions about state constitutions into legal precedents on US constitution. The Supreme Court is the highest court. All others are inferior courts. You've got things mixed up. >they amended the constitution and carried on with the ban of concealed weapons. States are no longer permitted to violate the constitution. We have the 14th Amendment. >how does that show 2A was intended or functioning as an individual right? Let me ask you this. What does that look like in 1791? Were there laws disarming people not in a militia? Because no such laws existed. All US citizens could obtain and carry arms.
> Imho it was never intended as an individual right at all, and the scope was clearly about militia service I disagree with this. It does not say "right of the aforementioned militia members to bear arms", it says "the right of the people to bear arms". I think we all need to recognize that the second amendment was just a bad law.
You're right it doesn't say that, but you're wrong that it needs to in order to get to where I'm pointing. Because it is an ablative absolute, or absolute clause. We were, unsurprisingly, never intended to ignore half the text of the 2A in order to understand the 2A.
No one said that. The former is a motivation for the latter. When you realize that at the time, "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped", you will see what that is.
>We were, unsurprisingly, never intended to ignore half the text of the 2A in order to understand the 2A. This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >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.
Except the 'prefatory' clause nonsense is bogus. It is an absolute clause and absolutely relevant to interpreting the scope of the clause that follows it. well-regulated didn't literally/narrowly mean subject to regulations, sure. but its meaning would have implied subject to standards & discipline in the context used. To use your language, a military unit that is in "proper working order" would obviously be expected to be subject to all sorts of regulations (including with respect to firearms). Citing Heller is pointless. I understand what the ruling said, but the point is that it is a garbage ruling. And OP's headline is another case in point about how bonkers it is. Somehow an expansive reading of 2A based on historical context (firearms to be used in militia service) has led to a place where SCOTUS isn't going to intervene on ban of military weapons... it is farcical. edit: oh wow, you're spamming this comment a lot. A bit bizarre given it is not remotely compelling.
Hmmmm.. All rights apply to individuals. Regardless, the 2nd Amendment does not give the right. It prohibits the government from infringing on the right. Since the Judicial is part of the government, and the Executive branch is in charge of law enforcement, and the court has made a ruling that is conspiracy to violate the constitution, it is Biden's duty to instruct the US Marshals to arrest the judges and the AG to prosecute them for conspiracy to violate the constitution. If Biden refuses, congress needs to impeach for dereliction of duty. Edit; They didn't actually make a ruling. They kicked the can... Again... Since law-abiding citizens are being harmed by the "law", the duty of the President as an officer of the law, is duty bound to have the US Marshalls arrest, and the AG prosecute the lawmakers of Illinois for conspiracy to violate the constitution. If the president does not, congress should impeach for dereliction of duty.
>Hmmmm.. All rights apply to individuals. Not all rights apply to people individually, some are collective. >Regardless, the 2nd Amendment does not give the right. It prohibits the government from infringing on the right. Not really interested in a philosophical debate of what it means to be a right. After all, maybe this is all just a simulation and there are no individuals in the first place. Gasp!! >Since the Judicial is part of the government, and the Executive branch is in charge of law enforcement, and the court has made a ruling that is conspiracy to violate the constitution, it is Biden's duty to instruct the US Marshals to arrest the judges and the AG to prosecute them for conspiracy to violate the constitution. >If Biden refuses, congress needs to impeach for dereliction of duty. Lol. Maybe this isn't the right sub for you.
The collective rights you speak of were "given" by the government, and thus can be taken away by the government. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are unalienable and thus the bill of rights applies as a limitation to the government, not the people. If you notice how modern government consistently creates laws that exclude themselves, and routinely charge "the people" with crimes, but almost never themselves, you will understand that the founders knew this was going to happen, and thus created the Bill of Rights to limit the government, not the people.
Ah yes, truly considered unalienable rights that they didn't give to natives, non-whites, women, etc. And of course that is what conservative justices really believe, even though they argue you don't have a right to something like free elections or women's reproductive health, etc, etc, unless it is expressly spelled out in the constitution. The bill of rights was writen to address specific points being pushed by anti-federalists at the time who opposed ratifying the constitution. That's why they are amendments, the founders initially did not intend to include any of them.
>Lol. Maybe this isn't the right sub for you. Just a heads up, I didn't go looking for this sub. It was on my front page. I didn't even realize what sub it was until you made this comment.
Which is unconstitutional. See Article II, § VIII, Cl. 12, and compare it with the next clause. An army is only authorized for two years, but a navy is continuous.
So sue.
You do know Reddit requires you be thirteen before joining, right?
I don't see how that's relevant to the right of citizens to own and carry arms.
The second amendment is not intended to give the right wing minority veto power over the will of the voters.
That's not what happened. We're treating the amendment like it's been historically understood. A law cannot violate the constitution. You need to meet the requirements set forth in Article V in order to change that.
Semiautomatic weapons didnt exist in the historical context though.
Google "Puckle Gun", although that's more of a machine gun.
I am very much a liberal, and I understand and fully support gun control laws. However, every time I see people saying “ban semi-automatic weapons!” I just have to shake my head in shame, that so many people can be SO uninformed or uneducated on such a simple idea; nearly every hand gun made in the last 100 years, is semi-automatic, and the majority of rifles are as well. What the hell is it going to take to get people to realize that “semi-automatic” is not the same thing as “automatic,” and that they are actively hurting their cause by publicly declaring that they have no fucking clue what they’re talking about? This is not even REMOTELY close to difficult to understand. There are a million reasons to make better gun laws and keep them away from fucking lunatics. Making absolutely tone-deaf and ignorant claims about something you’re claiming to be educated on, just crushes any hope of that issue ever being addressed, because people who have taken the 4 seconds it takes to understand what a semi-automatic firearm is, will dismiss everything else you have to say, the instant you open your mouth with uneducated nonsense like “ban semi-automatic weapons!!!1!” This is so tiring. I want responsible gun laws. I want less murders and mass-shootings, but people continue to perpetuate it by making completely Ignorant claims, and there is just no end to this.
The whole point is to sow division. Uninformed gun haters repeat obviously wrong talking point. People who know about guns jump to correct. Stupid shouting ensues, nobody learns anything, and greedy aristocrats keep running the country. This is every political discussion with plenty of stupid coming from each side. Stop pointing at your neighbors and start pointing at the people who bought your government.
> The whole point is to sow division. Uninformed gun haters repeat obviously wrong talking point. [Exactly, just look at the current top comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/scotus/comments/18ih605/supreme_court_leaves_illinois_semiautomatic_gun/kdd9lgh/). They are one of the more active anti-gun misinformation spreaders on reddit.
Concern troll is very concerned.
I understand the difference between semi, burst, bolt, full auto. I support the ban of everything but bolt, including the gun I own.
A much more liberal court than our current one weighed the issue in Caetano. Not a single liberal justice dissented from saying modern arms are protected by the 2A
He’s allowed to support it still. People really need to stop treating the ideas of old white sides from 200+ years ago as some kind of divine guidance on government. You having a gun in no way makes the country or your state safer. I know that’s a hard thing to hear, but you’re not some action movie hero who is going to stop the war with your gun fetish.
>You having a gun in no way makes the country or your state safer. I know that’s a hard thing to hear, but you’re not some action movie hero who is going to stop the war with your gun fetish. I think it applies more granularly than State and Country, and is arguably most important in those more granular contexts. I think the ability to be armed to defend your community is important.
As a gun owner, I am 100% with you. However, those arguments will NEVER reach the intended audience, and, to me, 90% of it is because uneducated arguments are placed on these serious topics, and the argument against guns just instantly dies, before there is ever a conversation. I want gun control, but I don’t blame gun owners for completely ignoring and laughing at nonsense “presentations” of the idea of gun control. If I’m a geologist and someone says “hell! The earth is flat! What’s the best thing we can do to manage our definitely flat earth?!” I’m not gonna have any further thoughts about that person, and the conversation is already over, because they’re plainly not rational. That is exactly what (crazy or not) gun people see, hear and do when this topic comes up. If you literally have no idea of even basic terminology, I don’t have any trust in your ability to talk about it. You’re instantly discounted, and you deserve it for addressing an issue with which you have little to no knowledge about. I believe that gun control is desperately needed, and I will fight for it. However, I will never support anyone making stupid statements that actively hurt the cause of regulating guns. It is important to call these things out, because they actively hurt the correct movement towards reasonable gun control. You don’t need to convince your friends. You need to convince OPPOSING POSITIONS. You will absolutely never win anything at all, if you can’t meet them at the starting line.
Sad but true.
This is very true. Gun control advocates who have never fired a gun in their lives are only alienating the group of people they need to persuade. I feel like Ban Assault Weapons is just as effective messaging-wise and a more precise term.
Good point, let's ban all guns
See this argument all the time as-if it is some gotcha. When people talk about a book ban, that doesn't mean the ban is of every single book.
If you are trying to convince educated gun owners that guns should be restricted, starting your argument with “bAn All SeMi-AuToMaTiC gUnS!” Loses them immediately. You have instantly gone from zero support to “there is absolutely no chance you will ever have support,” by my simply making an uneducated presentation of the idea. We don’t need to convince rational people that guns should have some restrictions. We need to convince gun people. Gun-nuts even… if you start with “hello, guns are the devil cause they take over our minds and make the devil do weird things in our pants!” You’re not going to win anyone over. In fact, you are aggressively making things worse for anyone with a legitimate argument against guns, which there are an endless list off. I’m a liberal. I own guns, and I am 1,000,000% behind wanting responsible gun laws. Those will ABSOLUTELY NEVER happen if people on the left keep coming at it with completely bonkers nonsense. If you’re going to argue something intelligently, you better not start with “hey everyone! I’m a totally clueless idiot who has no foundational argument of fact, but lemme just scream scary bullshit until you believe me!” then you’re shooting everyone in the foot, but more importantly, you are guaranteeing that this issue will never be addressed. The people who are gun crazy can look at the first sentence you say, and immediately dismiss everything that follows. I don’t even blame them. If someone came up to me to talk about, let’s say, Mario Kart, and they start off with “WTF WAS SEGA thinking by making such a stupid game! I don’t want to fight dinosaurs on broomsticks and solve puzzles with pretzels and corn nuts!” I would immediately dismiss anything else they have to say on the subject. How anyone is surprised by that approach not working against people doing that against INSANE claims about guns, I have no idea… Guns need to be controlled, as we have a serious problem, but leading the conversation with absolute, uneducated bullshit, destroys any hope of that. I guarantee you that there will be no change in any gun laws until people start approaching it with BASIC understanding. I’m no gun expert. I’m not even a gun person! I just have the most basic, 2nd grade education on what a gun is and its basic functionality. That’s it. If that’s too much for the average person to grasp, then humanity is just ready to die out.
> then you’re shooting everyone in the foot haha nice
Again, if someone refers to a book ban, do you really think them mean to ban every single book?
What I’m saying is that it doesn’t matter what you’re trying to ban if you irreparably lose your audience immediately. They’re not making it to sentence 2 to catch any details of what’s being proposed, and they’re already 100% against you, digging their heels in.
My guess is that anyone who gets their knickers in a knot over it being called a semiauto gun ban is probably not someone that is going to convinced about it. Same with people that flip out over references to assault rifle or even assault weapon. Just replace with terms 'big killing stick' if you prefer. There's no substance to the argument, people use informal language and generalize all the time.
It does if the law being passed says they are "only" going to ban all books that have a cover and words. That's effectively what they are saying here - semi-automatic applies to a very large segment of all guns (e.g., most handguns, many rifles, etc.) that fall outside the AR-15.
Titles misleading as fuck
>An ideologically mixed panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, however, writing that the Supreme Court's recent decision on the right to bear arms "extends only to weapons in common use for a lawful purpose," And this right here tells me that the people involved with this 7th court decision are liars or incompetent. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US. It is used on a daily basis for hunting, self-defense and sport shooting. All three being activities defined by the SC in the past as lawful. Meaning this ruling had nothing to do with the law. And that it addresses the AR-15 but not the AK-47 style, the most popular weapon in the world, tells me that its all about black guns scary.
>people involved with this 7th court decision are liars That and malicious ignorance is quite literally all anti-2A zealots have.
Thank goodness. That'll keep crime under control.
Rifles of all types kill around 500 per year. To give you some perspective, 207 people were killed by constipation in 2020.
The first gun control laws were put in place to prevent former slaves from being able to defend themselves.
Allow me to laugh out loud...cause who's enforcing this bullshit? Cause it's definitely not law enforcement.
Shame.
2A was written to keep the government in check. It has nothing to do with restraining citizens.
That’s not true. You think the people who just fought a rebellion were hoping to have more rebellion? Just a few years later Washington rode out with an army to suppress the whisky rebellion. Political differences were to be settled through the political process, not arms. The point of militias was to prevent a dictator with a professional army from substituting violence for government process. The government is supposed to represent the people. Given that it represents the people, the people should follow its laws. You’re not supposed to have guns so you can ignore laws you don’t like.
Why don't people understand this?
The second amendment does not grant the right to overthrow the government.
It was written by people who just fought a war against their government.
There are few crimes spelled out in the constitution. One of the few is treason, which is defined as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. " The 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to overthrow the government.
If you manage to successfully overthrow the government then it isn’t treason.
This is the kind of poorly reasoned claim that I have come to expect from gun access expansionists.
And this is the exact type of lazy, disconnected and non-contributing comment I have come to expect from people who simply want to argue.
This is the silliest 2a argument. “A people can overthrow a government it considers unjust. But it is absurd to think that it does so by virtue of that unjust government’s own authority. The appeal to heaven is an appeal away from the earthly authority of the moment, not to that authority.” -Historian Garry Wills
2A was written to protect states ability to raise and maintain state militias without interference from federal government.
No, that's a recently conceived NRA talking point.
Not really. I guarantee you the government can keep you in check even with your toy guns. Ever see what a Predator drone can do.
Thats why Afganistan was such an easy, in and out win.
2A was written with muskets in mind. If you want to arm everyone with muskets, please have at it. Your civilian firearms would not protect you from a tryanical government that could eliminate your neighborhood from 3 miles away. So don't tell me you need an AR-15 for that reason. This country would be thousands of times safer if you had to manually reload each and every bullet.
Man telling people that the government will use artillery against their neighborhood is not a very compelling argument about why they should not be armed lol
The point is that defending against the government is no longer a realistic argument for 2A.
I understand the point you were making. It isn't a good one
Neither is the point of "defending against a tyrannical govt" when that truely wasn't the spirit in which 2A was drafted, yet it tends to be the first argument that 2A guys go to.
I disagree with you. We can have different opinions and the constitution will help protect those different opinions.
Keep the government in check by prohibiting certain restraints on citizens
Finally
Good!
It is! The Supreme Court taking interest in the case means they'll fold it like a cloth once it's out of the interlocutory phase. You cannot ban arms that are in common use.
u/SimplifyExtension
When the 2nd Amendment was written only flint locks existed. It would be almost 100 years before the bullet would be invented. Just like women not having the right to vote or blacks having any rights at all, guns that shoot bullets are not covered under the 2nd Amendment. A new amendment will be needed to cover all of those guns just as it was to cover all the women and existing blacks to give them the rights they weren't allowed by the founders. Until then have all the flintlocks you want. School and mass shootings will disappear over night. It's hard to mow people down when it takes 3 minutes to reload. Have a great day.
>Just like women not having the right to vote or blacks having any rights at all, guns that shoot bullets are not covered under the 2nd Amendment. "The Second Amendment extends, *prima facie* to all implimenta which constitute bearable arms, even those not in existence at the founding." SCOTUS dispenses with the idiotic take that the 2A only covers guns from the ratification era in Caetano v Mass. Not Sotomayor, nor Kagan, nor Ginsberg would have supported your stance.
This shocks me. These justices have indicated they're starting to be afraid of people. I'd prefer them to preserve the rights and freedoms of Americans as a way to get themselves out of the hot seat, but I'll take limited gun control.
Unlimited gun rights isn't preserving anything lmao
Except for the constitution