See District of Columbia v. Heller - "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."
Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...".
The SCOTUS has now clearly shown that such precedents are not binding, leaving the door open for a decision that does account for the actual text of the constitution's Bill Of Rights.
And again, even with that Heller decision, and with many other posts, not a single respondent has shown a single proposed law by even the most liberal state representative that would infringe on a right of a sane, competent, and responsible person to keep and bear arms.
And if we are going to say that there is no restriction, then why isn't anyone arguing that we should be allowed to have .50cal machine guns, rocket launchers, or nukes? These are simply armaments with different rates and power, so why should the state restrict those? Hell, it's perfectly OK under the law for someone to walk into a theater or shopping mall and mow down dozens of people, why shouldn't they be able to just blow up the mall or nuke the city (provided they have the funds to buy the armaments)? That's half in jest, whole in earnest.
> Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...".
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. It’s not that the prefatory clause is ignored — it’s that its presence doesn’t negate the operative clause.
Notably, the second amendment neither prefaces the word “people” with “sane”, “competent” or “responsible”, so it’s not entirely clear to me as to whether you’re arguing on a basis of constitutionality or on something else altogether (is it both and neither simultaneously, maybe?)
While the initial clause may not negate the "shall not be infringed", it obviously, on it's face, modifies it.
The "shall not be infringed" part does not stand on it's own. If it did, the "well regulated militia" part would not have been written.
The claim that these are some kind of absolute, unqualified, unrestricted rights is just wrong on it's face.
The constitutional part of the argument is that — that there is a right, but it is qualified by the well-regulated militia requirements.
The fact that there is no specification of what counts as well-regulated means that we must use our knowledge of the intent of the founders, and of our own reality to make reasonable restrictions.
Since the army of the time was primarily citizen soldiers (the actual army numbering in the hundreds), they would have had some regulations and qualifications. I do not see anywhere that Washington insisted that every deranged village idiot be issued or permitted muskets. We can also use current-day standard military practice, where people qualify, are issued weapons, and have rules about where they can be carried or loaded.
And the original question is based on reasonability - are any even proposed laws actually going to infringe on the ability of a sane, competent, and responsible person to keep and bear arms (and no that does not mean instantly acquire and carry in all situations).
Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...".
Wait, you’re saying the Supreme Court read it wrong, but you read it correctly?
Two years ago, I would not have made that argument, as SCOTUS actually practiced their stated policy of stare decisis — The doctrine or principle that precedent should determine legal decision making in a case involving similar facts — SCOTUS overturning it's own decisions was a rare event.
However, in the last two years, the court has repeatedly overturned, either explicitly or by the shadow docket, many large precedents set by the same court.
The impetus from the court politically skewed by senate leadership (note Merrick Garland, Amy Cohen Barrett), and the nature of the cases taken by the court and these reversals is obviously political.
This opens up as fair game all prior SCOTUS decisions, as they are obviously not settled law, but open to change on a whim. The SCOTUS has degraded its status from a determiner of settled law to a set of umpires for the current inning.
So, yes, it is entirely reasonable to question prior SCOTUS decisions, especially now.
Not only is it allowed in America, but its is likely sometimes correct, insofar as a matter of interpretation can be said to be (at a minimum, the Supreme Court has been wrong, one time or another) as the Supreme Court has reversed itself on the meaning of Constitutional provisions.
WOW, that is a remarkably bad argument. Straight-up appeal to authority, condescension and social scorn, without substance.
It ignores that all SCOTUS cases are seriously contentious and most were differently decided by multiple appeals courts on different sides of the argument. Then, very few cases are decided 9-0; there is almost always at least one, if not multiple dissenting opinions among the SCOTUS justices themselves.
They are not all wrong, they were on the losing side of the argument.
Before this court, it might be argued that these were at least settled law, but since the current court has obviously decided that precedent is no longer important, the decisions are simply the current state of the law.
At least bring an actual argument with substance on the point of the topic, not "that piddling hobbyist must be wrong" (to agree with the dissenters on a now-notoriously fickle SCOTUS itself). Sheesh.
