[toss1]

Again, what part of "Well Regulated Militia" do you not understand?

None of these would be restrictions under a non-absolutist interpretation ignoring the entire start of the 2A. Granted, this does prevail now after decades of relentless promotion. That does not make it right.

Red flag laws are for people who have actually demonstrated their inability to control their own violence. There are a number of incidents of mass shooters who would have been prevented or slowed by such laws. And again, these people would be drummed out of any well-regulated militia.

Similarly, regulating or registering certain types of weapons does not seem out of bounds in a well-regulated militia, especially in urban environments.

I do have some problem with allowing police to seize weapons on suspicion, depending on the definition of suspicion, and the process to get them back. There are obvious circumstances where it should be not only allowed but required, and others where it is blatant state overreach.

Concealed carry, again in the context of a regulated militia — how is that a problem? You may have to show that you are armed.

Remember, even in the military itself, while weapons are issued and frequently used, they don't have people carrying any kind of weapon everywhere at any time, e.g., [0].

Again, the stated right is NOT any person of any level of mental or skilled competence can have access to any weapon at any time and any place.

It is: “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.”

The very first words are about regulation.

And the current results are proving the idiocy of a policy of unfettered access: 51 years of war 101,813 deaths

3 years of US gun deaths 133,759

US Death count in War

Vietnam War 1955-75 58,281

Korean War 1950-53 36,516

Iraq War 2003-11 4,614

Afghanistan War 2001-21 2,402

US gun deaths 2019-21 133,759

Every other western nation has similar levels of video games, mental illness, or whatever else you want to blame it on. Yet this only happens with any frequency here.

So, again, considering the ACTUAL constitutional intent of a well-regulated militia, what restrictions ACTUALLY INFRINGE ON RIGHTS OF SANE AND RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE.

I still have not seen a single instance of any actual legislator actually introducing a law that would broadly prohibit responsible gun ownership.

Show me one.

[0] https://www.military.com/pcs/can-you-carry-gun-military-base...

[refurb]

See District of Columbia v. Heller - "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

[toss1]

Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...".

The SCOTUS has now clearly shown that such precedents are not binding, leaving the door open for a decision that does account for the actual text of the constitution's Bill Of Rights.

And again, even with that Heller decision, and with many other posts, not a single respondent has shown a single proposed law by even the most liberal state representative that would infringe on a right of a sane, competent, and responsible person to keep and bear arms.

And if we are going to say that there is no restriction, then why isn't anyone arguing that we should be allowed to have .50cal machine guns, rocket launchers, or nukes? These are simply armaments with different rates and power, so why should the state restrict those? Hell, it's perfectly OK under the law for someone to walk into a theater or shopping mall and mow down dozens of people, why shouldn't they be able to just blow up the mall or nuke the city (provided they have the funds to buy the armaments)? That's half in jest, whole in earnest.

[ovao]

> Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...".

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. It’s not that the prefatory clause is ignored — it’s that its presence doesn’t negate the operative clause.

Notably, the second amendment neither prefaces the word “people” with “sane”, “competent” or “responsible”, so it’s not entirely clear to me as to whether you’re arguing on a basis of constitutionality or on something else altogether (is it both and neither simultaneously, maybe?)

[toss1]

While the initial clause may not negate the "shall not be infringed", it obviously, on it's face, modifies it.

The "shall not be infringed" part does not stand on it's own. If it did, the "well regulated militia" part would not have been written.

The claim that these are some kind of absolute, unqualified, unrestricted rights is just wrong on it's face.

The constitutional part of the argument is that — that there is a right, but it is qualified by the well-regulated militia requirements.

The fact that there is no specification of what counts as well-regulated means that we must use our knowledge of the intent of the founders, and of our own reality to make reasonable restrictions.

Since the army of the time was primarily citizen soldiers (the actual army numbering in the hundreds), they would have had some regulations and qualifications. I do not see anywhere that Washington insisted that every deranged village idiot be issued or permitted muskets. We can also use current-day standard military practice, where people qualify, are issued weapons, and have rules about where they can be carried or loaded.

And the original question is based on reasonability - are any even proposed laws actually going to infringe on the ability of a sane, competent, and responsible person to keep and bear arms (and no that does not mean instantly acquire and carry in all situations).

[refurb]

Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...".

Wait, you’re saying the Supreme Court read it wrong, but you read it correctly?

That’s your argument?

[toss1]

Two years ago, I would not have made that argument, as SCOTUS actually practiced their stated policy of stare decisis — The doctrine or principle that precedent should determine legal decision making in a case involving similar facts — SCOTUS overturning it's own decisions was a rare event.

However, in the last two years, the court has repeatedly overturned, either explicitly or by the shadow docket, many large precedents set by the same court.

The impetus from the court politically skewed by senate leadership (note Merrick Garland, Amy Cohen Barrett), and the nature of the cases taken by the court and these reversals is obviously political.

This opens up as fair game all prior SCOTUS decisions, as they are obviously not settled law, but open to change on a whim. The SCOTUS has degraded its status from a determiner of settled law to a set of umpires for the current inning.

So, yes, it is entirely reasonable to question prior SCOTUS decisions, especially now.

[fundad]

SCOTUS is a political body. Those decisions were promised during the 2016 presidential political campaign and he delivered.

It’s not like they’re scientists.

[robotresearcher]

That’s allowed in America.

[dragonwriter]

> That’s allowed in America.

Not only is it allowed in America, but its is likely sometimes correct, insofar as a matter of interpretation can be said to be (at a minimum, the Supreme Court has been wrong, one time or another) as the Supreme Court has reversed itself on the meaning of Constitutional provisions.

[refurb]

Yes, legal hobbyists are allowed to disagree with Supreme Court decisions.

That doesn’t mean they are right, in fact it almost certainly means they are wrong.

So yes, in America you’re allowed to be wrong.

[toss1]

WOW, that is a remarkably bad argument. Straight-up appeal to authority, condescension and social scorn, without substance.

It ignores that all SCOTUS cases are seriously contentious and most were differently decided by multiple appeals courts on different sides of the argument. Then, very few cases are decided 9-0; there is almost always at least one, if not multiple dissenting opinions among the SCOTUS justices themselves.

They are not all wrong, they were on the losing side of the argument.

Before this court, it might be argued that these were at least settled law, but since the current court has obviously decided that precedent is no longer important, the decisions are simply the current state of the law.

At least bring an actual argument with substance on the point of the topic, not "that piddling hobbyist must be wrong" (to agree with the dissenters on a now-notoriously fickle SCOTUS itself). Sheesh.

(eddit: typos)

[fundad]

It's unconstitutional to regulate a militia.