3 ms·

> Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. The irony h

> Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. The irony here is that this court strikes down a clause of the Gun Control Act 1968 on the grounds that it is "not consistent with the United States' 'historical tradition of firearm regulation'" – and yet the very Supreme Court precedents it is applying in doing so are themselves not consistent with that tradition. The 2nd Amendment was only intended to be a limit on federal gun laws; its authors didn't intend it to apply to the states, and nobody at the time understood it as doing so. Whether and to what extent state and local governments could regulate gun ownership was seen as a matter for state constitutions and state courts, not something the federal government (in any of its three branches) should get involved in. Then the 14th Amendment was enacted, to try to prevent the defeated Confederate states from oppressing the newly freed slaves. Nobody at the time thought it had any relevance to non-discriminatory gun laws. I think its framers would have supported its use to overturn racially discriminatory state or local gun laws, but they would have seen racially neutral gun regulation as outside its intended scope. The idea that non-discriminatory state and local (as opposed to federal) gun laws can violate the combination of the 2nd and 14th Amendments was introduced by the Supreme Court in 2010 (McDonald v Chicago). There is no evidence that the original authors of either Amendment would have foresaw or expected that outcome, and so was a major deviation from the "the United States' 'historical tradition of firearm regulation'". The Gun Control Act 1968 is of course a federal law, so overturning it is not prima facie inconsistent with the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. However, the logic of the decision (and the precedents it is based on) apply equally to equivalent state and local gun laws and regulations, which is a radical deviation from the original intentions behind the 2nd and 14th Amendments.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>The 2nd Amendment was only intended to be a limit on federal gun laws; its authors didn't intend it to apply to the states, and nobody at the time understood it as doing so. Whether and to what extent state and local governments could regulate gun ownership was seen as a matter for state constitutions and state courts, not something the federal government (in any of its three branches) should get involved in. How do you figure this? The other rights assigned to the people in the bill of rights can not be infringed by states. For example, states can not pass laws which restrict free speech.
- skissane 4y ago
  The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government-which the opening words of the 1st Amendment - “Congress shall make no law…”-make very clear. Its authors modelled it on similar Bills of Rights in state constitutions - they believed that protecting the rights of citizens against infringement by the state and local governments was the job of state constitutions (to be enforced by state supreme courts) - not a federal issue. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1833 case Barron v Baltimore. Then, the 14th Amendment was ratified. Its purpose was to prevent the ex-Confederate states from disenfranchising African-Americans. It was designed to overturn racially discriminatory state laws. There is no historical evidence its authors intended it to carte blanche apply the federal Bill of Rights to the states. But, although the intention of the 14th Amendment in its historical context is quite clear, it was rather vaguely worded-and, in a gradual process, the Supreme Court began to exploit that vagueness in order to interpret the 14th Amendment as doing exactly that-“incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states”-something it has done piecemeal, article by article, clause by clause, and which still has not yet completed - the 1st Amendment was gradually incorporated from 1925 to 1963; the 2nd was only incorporated in 2010; by contrast, the 7th Amendment (right to jury trials in civil suits, etc) still has not been. There is no evidence that the framers of the 14th Amendment ever intended the Supreme Court to engage in this rather arbitrary process of piecemeal “incorporation”-it is just something SCOTUS has made up out of whole cloth.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    That's really interesting, and something I haven't read before. Thank you for the idea
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    PS I'm currently listening to the scotus Bruen case and early in the oral arguments Justice Thomas mentioned the 14th Amendment and now I have understand the context and reference. Double thanks
15155 4y ago
> There is no evidence that the original authors of either Amendment would have foresaw or expected that outcome Except a number of the Federalist papers..

s1artibartfast 4y ago

>The 2nd Amendment was only intended to be a limit on federal gun laws; its authors didn't intend it to apply to the states, and nobody at the time understood it as doing so. Whether and to what extent state and local governments could regulate gun ownership was seen as a matter for state constitutions and state courts, not something the federal government (in any of its three branches) should get involved in. How do you figure this? The other rights assigned to the people in the bill of rights can not be infringed by states. For example, states can not pass laws which restrict free speech.

skissane 4y ago
The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government-which the opening words of the 1st Amendment - “Congress shall make no law…”-make very clear. Its authors modelled it on similar Bills of Rights in state constitutions - they believed that protecting the rights of citizens against infringement by the state and local governments was the job of state constitutions (to be enforced by state supreme courts) - not a federal issue. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1833 case Barron v Baltimore. Then, the 14th Amendment was ratified. Its purpose was to prevent the ex-Confederate states from disenfranchising African-Americans. It was designed to overturn racially discriminatory state laws. There is no historical evidence its authors intended it to carte blanche apply the federal Bill of Rights to the states. But, although the intention of the 14th Amendment in its historical context is quite clear, it was rather vaguely worded-and, in a gradual process, the Supreme Court began to exploit that vagueness in order to interpret the 14th Amendment as doing exactly that-“incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states”-something it has done piecemeal, article by article, clause by clause, and which still has not yet completed - the 1st Amendment was gradually incorporated from 1925 to 1963; the 2nd was only incorporated in 2010; by contrast, the 7th Amendment (right to jury trials in civil suits, etc) still has not been. There is no evidence that the framers of the 14th Amendment ever intended the Supreme Court to engage in this rather arbitrary process of piecemeal “incorporation”-it is just something SCOTUS has made up out of whole cloth.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  That's really interesting, and something I haven't read before. Thank you for the idea
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  PS I'm currently listening to the scotus Bruen case and early in the oral arguments Justice Thomas mentioned the 14th Amendment and now I have understand the context and reference. Double thanks

15155 4y ago

> There is no evidence that the original authors of either Amendment would have foresaw or expected that outcome Except a number of the Federalist papers..