[rootusrootus]

> Executive orders cannot overrule the Constitution.

And I would hope this is a fairly universally held position, not so partisan. Today one side might cheer an executive order overriding the 14th amendment, but how will they feel if the next administration decides to pull the same stunt with the 2nd?

We don't want to go there. There are already some states experimenting with doing end-runs around the Constitution with their own civil laws, and for similar reasons I would expect rational people to want that effort to fail.

[fl7305]

>> Executive orders cannot overrule the Constitution.

> I would hope this is a fairly universally held position, not so partisan.

I agree. I think the constitution limits both the executive and the legislative branches.

> how will they feel if the next administration decides to pull the same stunt with the 2nd?

The 2nd amendment has already been overridden by federal laws without a constutional amendment.

The 2nd used to mean that the states has a right to let their citizens arm themselves privately with military weapons. The federal government was forbidden by the 2nd to interfere with this.

I'm from Europe and fine with the very restrictive licensing we have here.

But it looks very shortsighted to wildly re-interpret the constitution far outside of the original meaning, instead of passing new amendments.

[rootusrootus]

> The 2nd used to mean that the states has a right to let their citizens arm themselves privately with military weapons

In particular, at the time that it was written, it meant arm themselves with military weapons for the purposes of military action. That's what the contemporary use of the term "bear arms" was understood to mean. Try to find any mention of self-defense from back then. It wasn't what they were thinking about.

Or look at this earlier version: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

That conscientious objector clause at the end certainly gives some context to the discussion.

The modern interpretation of the second amendment is very different.

[fl7305]

> In particular, at the time that it was written, it meant arm themselves with military weapons for the purposes of military action. That's what the contemporary use of the term "bear arms" was understood to mean. Try to find any mention of self-defense from back then. It wasn't what they were thinking about.

That's what I meant too. I didn't bring up self-defense, did I?

The 2nd amendment protects the states' right to build up their own state militias by allowing their citizens to arm themselves with military weapons. It forbids the federal government from interfering with this.

> The modern interpretation of the second amendment is very different.

Yes. The federal "assault weapons ban" is completely incompatible with the 2nd amendment.

This was pushed through without a new amendment. Instead people used linguistic acrobatics to re-interpret the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

It would have been a lot easier today to shut down any attempts to re-interpret the 14th amendment if we hadn't started down this path with the 2nd.