3 ms·

> The way you're talking about the second amendment I expect that you don't want the same interpretation applied to the first amendment the Fourth amendment or

> The way you're talking about the second amendment I expect that you don't want the same interpretation applied to the first amendment the Fourth amendment or the 5th amendment. No, I'm saying that a consistent originalist interpretation would be that the Bill of Rights should not be applied to the States, absent a constitutional amendment clearly stating that, and understood as stating that at the time it was adopted. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, it wasn't interpreted as applying the 1st to the states until 1925 – over 50 years later. If people wanted states to be bound by the 1st Amendment – or the 2nd or the 4th or the 5th – they should have passed a constitutional amendment explicitly saying so, not relied on SCOTUS to de facto amend it by interpreting the 14th as saying something that few thought it meant at the time it was adopted.

beaglesss 2y ago
[flagged]
- skissane 2y ago
  I disagree: I think the reference to "arms" was originally understood as applying primarily to small arms, not artillery. I think, in the first few decades of the 2nd Amendment being in force, federal restrictions on purely private ownership of artillery – and especially large artillery – would likely have been upheld, while federal restrictions on purely private ownership of small arms would almost surely have been struck down. While people at the time could not have foreseen nuclear weapons, they are more like large artillery than small arms, so I think federal restrictions on purely private ownership of them would likely have been upheld even given the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. (By "purely private", I mean to exclude military units organised by state or local governments.)
  - beaglesss 2y ago
    Dude you could buy a cannon at the founding (and still can no background check).
    - skissane 2y ago
      The point is, if the federal government had tried to restrict private ownership of certain kinds of artillery in the early 19th century, would it have been held to have violated the 2nd? Nobody can say for sure, because the issue (to my knowledge) never came up – but if it did, I expect SCOTUS would have drawn a legal distinction between small arms commonly used for infantry, hunting and personal self-defense, versus larger scale military weapons. Such a distinction can be defended on originalist grounds, since small arms was the primary thing the people who voted for the 2nd were thinking about. It actually raises an interesting historical question – to which I don't know the answer – in the debates on the proposal and ratification of the 2nd, was the status of larger scale weapons under it ever raised?
    - thinkmassive 2y ago
      You could own a fleet of ships all outfitted with many cannons
      - beaglesss 2y ago
        [flagged]

beaglesss 2y ago

[flagged]

skissane 2y ago
I disagree: I think the reference to "arms" was originally understood as applying primarily to small arms, not artillery. I think, in the first few decades of the 2nd Amendment being in force, federal restrictions on purely private ownership of artillery – and especially large artillery – would likely have been upheld, while federal restrictions on purely private ownership of small arms would almost surely have been struck down. While people at the time could not have foreseen nuclear weapons, they are more like large artillery than small arms, so I think federal restrictions on purely private ownership of them would likely have been upheld even given the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. (By "purely private", I mean to exclude military units organised by state or local governments.)
- beaglesss 2y ago
  Dude you could buy a cannon at the founding (and still can no background check).
  - skissane 2y ago
    The point is, if the federal government had tried to restrict private ownership of certain kinds of artillery in the early 19th century, would it have been held to have violated the 2nd? Nobody can say for sure, because the issue (to my knowledge) never came up – but if it did, I expect SCOTUS would have drawn a legal distinction between small arms commonly used for infantry, hunting and personal self-defense, versus larger scale military weapons. Such a distinction can be defended on originalist grounds, since small arms was the primary thing the people who voted for the 2nd were thinking about. It actually raises an interesting historical question – to which I don't know the answer – in the debates on the proposal and ratification of the 2nd, was the status of larger scale weapons under it ever raised?
  - thinkmassive 2y ago
    You could own a fleet of ships all outfitted with many cannons
    - beaglesss 2y ago
      [flagged]