Keeping and bearing arms is a constitutional right, but the Supreme Court has gone to great lengths to emphasize that it is not absolute. In 2008, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
I’m a little disappointed that the best the Brennan Center can come up with under this headline is an analysis of how courts have ruled on similar measures at different moments in our history. I’m ready for some realistic analysis of the 2nd Amendment. What are the arguments that might get idiocies like Heller overturned?
We really ought to get one thing straight—stuff like this:
> “One court held that assault rifles aren’t covered by the Second Amendment at all; others that even if they are covered, they still can be banned because doing so sufficiently advances public safety. No matter the reasoning, the outcome has been the same: the Second Amendment doesn’t prevent these types of bans”…
has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, but with the right wing supreme court’s interpretation of it.
There is no mention in the 2nd amendment of “assault rifles,” handguns, machine guns or any kind of gun. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment about guns for self-defense or an individual right to carry any kind of weapon around with you. There is the militia clause, which has been effectively repealed.
What it is going to take is resolve by those who wish to see the carnage end to elect politicians who will appoint justices who will reject these changes and restore the historic interpretation that is that the “people” have a right to a well regulated militia, not a right to personal, unregulated arsenals.
This piece is absolutely idiotic and why lib/progs are not just useless, but counter-productive. They need to read the first clause in the 2nd Amendment, assuming they read. Just because the corporate court is brain-dead and soul dead, it doesn’t mean that the rest of us must buy in.
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.
I don’t understand this post. Who is “not just useless, but counter-productive”? Who “needs to read the first clause”? What is this all about?
Who is God? And where is this God?
the first clause talks about militias, not individual rights
te wording is pretty self-evident
Where in the “2A” is that wording?
I know what the first clause talks about. What has that to do with “libs/progs” who are “not just useless, but counter-productive”?