| >I would say the intent is much narrower than the actual text Justice Scalia rejected the notion of giving much importance to the intent of drafters. His objective was to interpret the text according to its original public meaning. As Scalia noted in Heller, the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right"; it didn't grant a new right. And although "self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification", "it was the central component of the right itself". >People in the armed forces don't own the weapons they use now. That's exactly the system that the framers wanted to avoid. The citizen militia (with their own privately owned arms) was envisioned as an alternative to a standing army in times of peace. >Today, the National Guard is basically the "Militia." The National Guard is the organized part of the militia. The unorganized militia has much broader membership.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 >there's nothing unconstitutional about laws requiring trigger locks or other safety measures for their storage. The trigger-lock requirement wasn't limited to storage. It didn't have an exception to allow removing the trigger lock to use to the gun in self-defense or for carrying holstered on one's person. That's why it was ruled unconstitutional. |