Never mind that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. This whole thing reeks of being a publicity stunt. Or of lawyers for the company eager to bill for expensive hours.
Edited to reflect that my opinion is not how the courts have interpreted it.
The state’s lawyers could just as well cite that as evidence that the gun lobby has successfully promoted a myth that owning a gun makes you safer.
Or, that Sidney Powell’s firm is expanding into different gop* issues.
*gop. Rhymes with “cop”; not capitalized. (Help me make this a thing.)
I think the meaning is pretty clear, up to standardizing to modern comma usage. “Given that a militia is essential to the defense of a State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed”.
And since that dependent clause no longer holds true…
Unless you live in some crazy-huge-open-area McMansion, a Louisville Slugger will protect you from home intruders better than a gun.
And your kids don’t have to worry about getting a shot; just a strike.
That, to me, reads that the right to keep and bear arms is only uninfringable as it pertains to a militia and defense of the state. There’s nothing there about self-defense or personal property. And clearly there are some people who think those are pretty central to it!
So the way the current president is attempting to destroy his own party, you could say he is a GOP killer?
Not the case. The Constitution supercedes all other law in the US, even State Constitutions can not conflict with it.
When state and local gun laws are challenged in court, often successfully, it’s always under the 2nd amendment.
I’m surprised that the NRA still has enough funds left to waste on spurious lawsuits. Especially if they get hit for court costs or damages.
The14th Amendment says otherwise, IF you assume that gun ownership is one of the “priviliges and immunities” of Americans.
That said, the Second Amendment (as currently applied) is an 18th Century solution in search of a 21st century problem.
Yes, I am aware of how conservatives have led us to believe that the “individual rights” interpretation is the only dogma acceptable, and I consider myself firmly in the “collective rights” camp. And the 2008 USSC decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was a fucking disgrace written by self-serving authoritarians. That’s my pithy take.
There sure are. Unfortunately that includes a majority of the so-called jurists on the 2008 Supreme Court.
[Sidebar: I’m not fundamentally opposed to the idea of people owning and using weapons for self-defense; however, there’s no clear Constitutional evidence for this being a Constitutionally-enshrined right, Scalia’s dishonest jurisprudence notwithstanding.]
Clearly the second amendment means that gun ownership is mandatory. I mean if we’re playing the game where we wildly interpret the text of the Constitution while simultaneously ignoring history and prior ruling.
Interestingly, a lot of the early drafts for the 2nd included a “duty” to keep and bear arms. This came out in the edits, though.
I can believe it, a lot of the Founding Fathers were enamoured of the Cinncinnatus ideal and the Roman Republic, where landowners were the ones who raised armies when Rome called.
Not to mention a (somewhat reactionary) fear of professional, standing armies, thanks to old Georgie’s colonial policies and practices.
Yeah, that’s not at all subject to manipulation by an army of bots, even meat ones.
No that’s not the hangup. And the debate between the absolute, individual right take from the NRA and the more traditional collective take isn’t about whether it applies to States or not.
It applies to States. Just as the 1st amendment applies to States. And Heller wasn’t predicated on whether it applies to States, DC isn’t even a State.
These challenges are about whether things violate the constitution, under the collective interpretation state and city laws do not violate the 2nd amendment. Neither do federal ones. I’d argue that they still don’t under the individual right claim.
But the entire point of pushing that take is to broaden the amount of measures that could potentially conflict.
The only interpretation where it “doesn’t apply” to States is the very strictest militia framing. Where the amendment only exists to block the Federal Government from preventing the States from organizing militias by restricting access to weapons.
In which case the amendment is about rights and obligations that State governments have, not individuals or the collective. You could actually argue all States are currently in violation of this based on how heavily federalized the National Guard is right now.