5 ms·

> constitutionally difficult to do anything about it with the current interpretation of our second amendment in the Supreme Court. Could you explain what’s “di

• rtkwe 3y ago
  Does the lack of that language in the other amendments mean they're not really protected? There's similar language in the other amendments in the bill of rights, "Congress shall make no laws" in the First Amendment for example, where we have and accept some limitation on those rights. Does the "well regulated militia" clause imply an individual right to bear arms or only that the Federal government can't make laws to disarm recognized militias? Ultimately in the US system it doesn't really matter what you or I think a particular phrase means the only opinion that matters directly is that of the majority of the Supreme Court. Even the current Court's interpretation of 2A accepts there are reasonable restrictions on gun rights they just need to be similar or comparable to restrictions around the founding.
• greedo 3y ago
  SCOTUS held quite a different view of the 2nd Amendment for many many years until the efforts of the NRA and gunmakers succeeded in altering this in the last 30 years.
  • vuln 3y ago
    > SCOTUS held quite a different view of the 2nd Amendment for many many years Which years specifically before the NRA lobbied for the last 30 years? Anything before 1990? Please be specific.
    • greedo 3y ago
      I'm assuming both that you're arguing in good faith, and that your ability to use search engines must be seriously impaired. So here goes: 1875 - US v Cruikshank. Held that states have the ability to regulate firearms independent of the Federal government. 1939 - US v Miller. Held that the "obvious purpose" of the 2nd Amendment was insuring effective state militias. Specifically insisting that only those guns usable in militia service and held for the purpose of militia service were protected by the Second Amendment. Until DC v Heller in 2008, this was all settled law. Until 1977, the NRA was focused mostly on firearms safety education, recreational shooting/hunting, and marksmanship/sportsmanship. A group of right-wingers took over at the 1977 annual convention and by 1980 was solely focused on expanding the 2nd Amendment and more importantly, financing candidates who would oppose any gun control. Reagan was the first president ever endorsed by the organization, and within a decade the NRA had tremendous influence on the Republican Party. And they funded an incredible amount of legal "scholarship" attempting to shore up the sandy foundations of their 2nd Amendment interpretation.
      • codersfocus 3y ago
        Reagan was the one who banned guns in California, and the 2 cases you mention seem irrelevant
        • rtkwe 3y ago
          The cases show the former and long running consensus in the court that some regulations were not unconstitutional infringements in contrast to the "shall not be infringed" absolutism popular among progun groups today.
        • greedo 3y ago
          AB 1591 was signed into law not because Reagan supported gun control in general, but because the Black Panthers had been conducting armed protests in 1967. 12 years after signing the Mulford Act into law, Reagan diminished the act; "I hardly think it was gun control."
        • greedo 3y ago
          So a SCOTUS decision that states the obvious purpose of the 2nd Amendment are state militias seems irrelevant...
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Could you explain, "a well regulated militia"?
• abenga 3y ago
  The constitution was written by flawed humans, flawed humans who came after them and learnt better should be able to change it.