While I am often not very happy witht he GOP leaning SCOTUS on this one I really am glad to have a right-leaning supreme court.

Lets hope they do the right thing and knock down these and similar state-laws as unconstitutional and in violation of the #2A

@freemo Make a case for this being unconstitutional.

@jaysonmassey I'd say the wording of the second amendment makes it very clear. It is pretty clear about the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed".. its also very clear (and stated in countless direct quotes from the authors) that the "well regulated militia" is a exemplary clause and not a qualifying clause.

So, as far as i can tell, the current wording and history is so clear there isnt much need to make a case, or at least, there shouldnt be much need.

@freemo Let's get clear on this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What does ""well regulated militia" is a exemplary clause and not a qualifying clause" mean?

@jaysonmassey It means that it is mentioning the militia only as an **example** as to why we need gun rights, not as a **condition** on why we need it...

The wording is right there in the 2A ... "being necessary".. It gives an example as to one reason why it is neccesary, and states as much. Nothing in the wording is even suggestive of the fact that it should be a right limited to the militia.

Also very clearly explained in quotes from the founding fathers who wrote it.

@freemo Thanks for your explanation.

@jaysonmassey Happy to

@jaysonmassey

Think about if the first amendment was worded as:

A free press being necessary for the functioning of a country, the right to freedom of speak shall not be infringed

Essentially the same format.. if you read that would you or anyone objectively reading it be able to say "Ok thats saying only the press should have freedom of speech and no one else should have that right"... or that "that seems to suggest I can infringe on peoples freedom of speech as long as its not the press"

I doubt it, and frankly I suspect anyone reading the second amendment who isnt bias would probably agree with me.

@freemo The press is not 'well-regulated'. Actually, ANYONE, including us, COULD be in the press.

The other big issue is that generally, the Constitution is a 'living' document. It should change as needed:

"Happily for us," he said, "that when we find our constitutions
defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people,
we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers, and set them to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitution."'"

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1930&context=mlr

@jaysonmassey

> The press is not 'well-regulated'. Actually, ANYONE, including us, COULD be in the press.

Funnily enough if you want to go that angle one of our founding fathers who was there when it was written addressed exactly this in 1788:

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason

> The other big issue is that generally, the Constitution is a 'living' document. It should change as needed

Absolutely. Write a new amendment and at least its not a dishonest tactic and well within the intention. But this is not what people do, and for now until that happens, these laws are unconstitutional.

@freemo @freemo Would 'the whole people' include women? Slaves? Disabled people? The old?

Could a older person load a musket? Someone with only one arm?

Can't just take these writings literally.

They were arguments with each other in the 1700s, before AR-15s.

Frame the Framers in the time and environment they were in. That takes reading.

@freemo One other issue is that the Supreme Court itself will interpret the Constitution differently, even though it's so old. So, it changes even though the WORDS themselves haven't changed.

@jaysonmassey YEs, but for the SCOTUS to act in good faith they must be trying their best to interprit the words as they are clearly written to mean, and only deviate when the words arent explicit... shall not infringe is pretty explicit.

@freemo I have no idea what you are talking about here. The SCOTUS chooses which cases to hear and votes. The SCOTUS may vote on the case, if they do that "in good faith" is a matter of opinion based on each individual case.

@jaysonmassey No, the SCOTUS can not just make up any arbitrary vote they want.. .there is an expectation (though this may not be honored, and if not they may be impeached) that they will try to honor the law as it is written. They dont get to just makeup any meaning they want.. i mean yea they **could** but that would be a gross violation of their oath and expectations.