Replies

I understand your argument, and, yes, justices may take such historical context into consideration. But it will not be ‘the’ ruling factor. Why? Because by such an argument, ‘firearm’ refers to nothing more than a musket. Are we to interpret the 2nd Amendment as meaning that only adult, white, males have an inalienable right to bear muskets, but not rim-fire or center-fire rifles? Is such a narrow reading grounds for outlawing all firearms that take clips/magazines?

The difficulty in being a good, constructionist justice is safeguarding the original intent of the Founding Fathers (e.g., the individual citizens have the right to bear arms) with changes in society to which those original principles still apply (e.g., the individual citizens have the right to bear all types of firearms, not just muskets).

That said, I have no idea which way the court will go. With it being acceptable to limit the possession of automatic weaponry and so many cities having already banned firearms in essence (NY) with little or no contest, they may well say that our civil liberties can be infringed if local situations warrant a type of ‘martial crackdown’ for public safety. It would be a BS reading, in my opinion. But at this point I wouldn’t be surprised.

By going back to 1792 I was not attempting to "lock in" any definition of who the second amendment protected or what arms were protected. I was simply pointing out who I thought the Founders were referring to when they wrote the second amendment.

Some say all individuals. I say the evidence points to only those individuals who were members of a well regulated Militia.

Given my general definition, that right, today, extends to women and nonwhites. It also extends to the arms in use today. (The latter was confirmed by the Miller court.) But it still only protects the right of individuals as members of a well regulated state Militia from federal infringement.

"they may well say that our civil liberties can be infringed if local situations warrant a type of ‘martial crackdown’ for public safety"

The Parker court admitted that even if it is an individual right it may still be regulated.