I posted this in the Ukraine war thread, but it is also relevant here.
It is likely that at least some changes to attitudes toward guns may be temporary, with some people seeing more permissive policies as an adjustment to wartime necessities rather than a desirable permanent outcome.
However, together with other surveys, our results do indicate that gun liberalization is likely to represent a long-term source of debate in Ukrainian society even after the war, with many if not most Ukrainians now seeing guns as normal and desirable, and a narrow majority now supporting liberalized policies, including for handguns.
I apologize if this has already been discussed earlier and I missed it, but why is the actual interpretation of the Second Amendment so rarely brought up?
“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 language is a little vague, but not THAT vague. The “well regulated Militia” part is right there, front and center. And always completely ignored by gun humpers, and usually by their opponents too. Why is individual gun ownership in the home even on the table to begin with? It only makes sense if you utterly disregard the Militia part and assume it’s just in there for, I don’t know, flavor or something? Why do we let gun owners essentially invent what they think their rights are when we have an actual document that doesn’t say what they claim it says? People are constantly pointing at the Second Amendment as justification while completely ignoring the first half of it.
I understand that the pro-gun folks are going to claim that it means whatever gives them the least restriction, and that judges in the past have agreed with that faulty interpretation, giving it some teeth. What I don’t understand is why gun control proponents have just given up and gone along with the lie. By conceding that the Second Amendment means what they claim it means, we’re put in the position of trying to take away existing rights rather than completely fictional rights that were never real to begin with. Even if the “well regulated Militia” argument isn’t the go-to, it still seems like it should be a major talking point that’s brought up constantly. Can someone explain why this isn’t the case? I feel like I’m missing something obvious and it’s bothered me for a long time. Am I hung up on a stale argument myself?
Because constitutional interpretation in judicial review is a political action. Always.
As it happens “originalist” interpretation is not only a political action but it is also fraudulent, intellectually bankrupt, and corrupt.
You need to pack the court with people devoted to overturning this monstrous interpretation with the zeal of all those appointed by the fascists to deny women’s healthcare rights. Only, hopefully, not sex abusers, drunkards, or manifest incompetents. It’s not necessary. Decent, hard working, brilliant people can be found to fit the bill. “Conservatives “ had to scrape the barrel to get their way but progressives wouldn’t have to.
None of which explains why it’s rarely talked about. At this rate even if we did pack the court, the issue would never even come up (though hopefully SOME sort of gun control would result all the same). I want to be clear, I don’t realistically think we can point to the Militia bit and expect everyone to just give up their guns. I don’t think outright banning of guns is going to happen, that genie’s out of the bottle and it’s not going back. But I think the Militia argument could be useful as a wedge to scrap the Second Amendment and replace it with something with clear, unambiguous wording that promotes sane gun control that will prevent our pandemic of mass murder while still allowing hunters, collectors and target shooters to have their hobby.
Which itself is illogical. The phrase “shall not be infringed” is the strongest such language in the document. Without “well-regulated militia” tempering it, it would be unconstitutional to deny firearms to convicted murderers in prison.
We have gun control. From there, it’s just negotiation about how much gun control serves the public interest.
It’s decided law, the doctrine of stare decisis makes it very difficult for courts to revisit earlier decisions.
It’s a poorly drafted amendment with, as we tend to do here, too many words in it which makes it more rather than less confusion. But yes, if and when you pack the courts it’s an obvious avenue to look at. I’m not sure it’s productive though because, and I don’t know much about US gun stuff, surely assault rifles are exactly what a well regulated militia would want people to have? Handguns not so much of course.
For ammosexuals. In the 18th century, it meant a citizen militia that was trained and drilled by a skilled professional soldier (that time’s equivalent of a drill sergeant). So-called Originalists like Scalia ignore that because it turns the 2nd Amendment into what it was intended to be: an amendment establishing what we now call the National Guard.
Yes, but that all assumes you haven’t already got a SC packed with corrupt theocrats, fascists, and grifters, who have already decided and demonstrated that they think stare decisis is as decorative as “well regulated militia”.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - the case that dropped “well-regulated militia” is more recent than the abortion case that Dobbs abandoned precedent for
