Replies

"Each side resorts to what Tushnet calls “a simplified version of constitutional analysis” to support its viewpoint, looking solely at the wording of the amendment and what the language meant in 1791 rather than at whether society has changed in the meantime and what judicial precedents offer guidance. In “virtually no other area in constitutional law” is analysis done that way, he says, although he’s not sure why."

This is what it boils down to: do you analyze the law as it was written, in the context it was written, with the meaning it was written, or do you believe in "emanations" and "penumbra" and changing meaning over time and interpreting it in light of international law, etc, etc, etc.

I cannot for the life of me understand these people who believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document open to constant reinterpretation. It means what the authors intended it to mean, period

Everywhere else in the Constitution and Bill of Rights where the words "the people" is used, it is meant as an individual right. How can it suddenly mean a state right when used in the Second?

"I cannot for the life of me understand these people who believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document open to constant reinterpretation. It means what the authors intended it to mean, period."

And, at the time, they intended it to apply only to white, male citizens, 18-45 years of age. The second amendment didn't protect women, non-whites, children, or non-citizens.

"How can it suddenly mean a state right when used in the Second?"

It doesn't. The article refers to a "collective right", meaning those in a Militia, collectively, have their RKBA protected from federal infringement.

"Everywhere else in the Constitution and Bill of Rights where the words "the people" is used, it is meant as an individual right"

No, "the people" refer to a particular group. Please see my post #47.