3 ms·

The meaning seems obvious. A well regulated militia is required for the security of a free state. Therefore, people's freedom to keep and bear arms shall not be

by Asooka 5y ago

The meaning seems obvious. A well regulated militia is required for the security of a free state. Therefore, people's freedom to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It declares an already existing freedom to keep and bear arms (as IIRC nothing on the federal level forbade it), and forbids its infringement by the state, with the goal of keeping the population familiar with the operation of firearms for the benefit of local militias. Or read the longer explanation by the Cornell Law School https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2/second-amendment-doctrine-and-practice https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2/s... .

skulk 5y ago
That explanation you linked is a whole lot of words, and after reading it I am less sure of what I thought the Second Amendment means than ever. Its meaning is anything but obvious. I say this because there is nothing about self-defense in the text of the Second Amendment, and yet the SCOTUS has held that self-defense is one of the rights that cannot be infringed. It's not at all obvious how a statement about the necessity of a well-regulated militia has anything to do with personal self-defense with a handgun. I can see a world where the DC handgun ban was upheld by the SCOTUS because long guns (for the well-regulated militia) were still available and personal self-defense isn't covered under the wording of 2A. Of course, if you bring the zeitgeist into view this seems absurd, but in a vacuum where the 2A is the only reference it makes logical sense.
- Gunax 5y ago
  Well, we are talking about a body that finds the constitution protects privacy, even though CTRL-F 'privacy' has zero results. I am not saying they are right or wrong, but any pretense that the courts rule based on the text of the law should be discarded. The reality is they find rights and laws that seem reasonable to their own selves, and disregard precedent that is poorly argued (ie they don't like the result). The alternative is perhaps that we are stuck with Plessy v Ferguson until the end of time or a constitutional amendment is ratified (end of time seems more plausible).
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    I'd argue the 4th Amendment gives you a right to privacy from the government.

by Asooka 5y ago

skulk 5y ago

That explanation you linked is a whole lot of words, and after reading it I am less sure of what I thought the Second Amendment means than ever. Its meaning is anything but obvious. I say this because there is nothing about self-defense in the text of the Second Amendment, and yet the SCOTUS has held that self-defense is one of the rights that cannot be infringed. It's not at all obvious how a statement about the necessity of a well-regulated militia has anything to do with personal self-defense with a handgun. I can see a world where the DC handgun ban was upheld by the SCOTUS because long guns (for the well-regulated militia) were still available and personal self-defense isn't covered under the wording of 2A. Of course, if you bring the zeitgeist into view this seems absurd, but in a vacuum where the 2A is the only reference it makes logical sense.

Gunax 5y ago
Well, we are talking about a body that finds the constitution protects privacy, even though CTRL-F 'privacy' has zero results. I am not saying they are right or wrong, but any pretense that the courts rule based on the text of the law should be discarded. The reality is they find rights and laws that seem reasonable to their own selves, and disregard precedent that is poorly argued (ie they don't like the result). The alternative is perhaps that we are stuck with Plessy v Ferguson until the end of time or a constitutional amendment is ratified (end of time seems more plausible).
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  I'd argue the 4th Amendment gives you a right to privacy from the government.