The Guardian: National Reciprocity Likely

[chipbennett]

Yes, chip, it almost entirely limited only the federal government.

You quoted the 2A. Where does it say that the states shall not infringe it when, at the very moment of its adoption, every state had some sort of limitation - legal and/or functional - on RKBA?

As I recall, the Heller opinions covered this ground. The briefs, even moreso.

If the constitution didn't specifically say that something was prohibited to the states, then it didn't mean that it was prohibited to the states.

Why does 1A specify the federal government (Congress), yet 2A specifies no level of government? Was it just sloppy writing, or did the founders intend for "Congress shall make no law..." and "...shall not be infringed"?

And if the founders' intentions weren't clear enough to begin with, the 14th amendment, as specifically incorporated by McDonald, even further clarifies that 2A applies also to the states.

 

[T.Lex]

Why does 1A specify the federal government (Congress), yet 2A specifies no level of government? Was it just sloppy writing, or did the founders intend for "Congress shall make no law..." and "...shall not be infringed"?

One man's "sloppy" is another man's "negotiated."

Go back to the 10th. If it doesn't say prohibited to the states, it was reserved to the states and the people.

Local regulation of RKBA was the norm. It was expected.

And if the founders' intentions weren't clear enough to begin with, the 14th amendment, as specifically incorporated by McDonald, even further clarifies that 2A applies also to the states.

Yes, so that gets us back the notion that - even when adopted - states were able to regulate RKBA. It was not, ever, absolute. At least not in a legal sense.

 

[Bill of Rights]

T, I've discussed this before. Obviously, I'm no lawyer, but correct me if I'm mistaken, the Constitution was written so that any American who could read could interpret it.

By my read, the 1A specifically limited Congress, and no one else, from infringing on the five rights it protects. The 2A has no such limitation, saying instead not that the Congress shall not infringe, but rather that the right shall not be infringed. That passive voice, IMHO, denies that power to all governmental entities. The 10A only strengthens that, further defining that the power to infringe thereon is not given to the fed, denied to the state, so allowed only to the people, as in private property rights (a home- or business owner could define for his property... yadda yadda. and an argument might even be made against that, given that it seems, by its wording, to deny that power to ALL, though with the Constitution being a limitation on government and a protection of rights, that one's a harder sell.

Thoughts?

Blessings,
Bill

Yes, chip, it almost entirely limited only the federal government.

You quoted the 2A. Where does it say that the states shall not infringe it when, at the very moment of its adoption, every state had some sort of limitation - legal and/or functional - on RKBA?

As I recall, the Heller opinions covered this ground. The briefs, even moreso.

If the constitution didn't specifically say that something was prohibited to the states, then it didn't mean that it was prohibited to the states.

 

[T.Lex]

T, I've discussed this before. Obviously, I'm no lawyer, but correct me if I'm mistaken, the Constitution was written so that any American who could read could interpret it.

Where does this idea come from? Heck, not even everyone could vote. No reason to make it readable by the masses.

I would say MAYBE the pamphleteering of the Federalist Papers might've been written to that level, but not the constitution itself. It was written as a legal document by and for people who were knowledgeable about those things.

By my read, the 1A specifically limited Congress, and no one else, from infringing on the five rights it protects. The 2A has no such limitation, saying instead not that the Congress shall not infringe, but rather that the right shall not be infringed. That passive voice, IMHO, denies that power to all governmental entities. The 10A only strengthens that, further defining that the power to infringe thereon is not given to the fed, denied to the state, so allowed only to the people, as in private property rights (a home- or business owner could define for his property... yadda yadda. and an argument might even be made against that, given that it seems, by its wording, to deny that power to ALL, though with the Constitution being a limitation on government and a protection of rights, that one's a harder sell.

Thoughts?

Re-read Heller.

If they wrote the 2A as you desire, then they would've been ignoring the fundamental reality that they each lived every single day. If the 2A was the result of the retcon fantasy that you describe, where was the instant abolition of all contrary state and local laws immediately after its passage?

I prefer to think that the framers of the constitution and the adopters of the Bill of Rights (which, as you likely know, happened about 4 years later), recognized reality and negotiated language that they could all live with.

It wasn't what any one of them would've written; it was what all of them would accept. (Well, a majority of them, at least.)

 

[jamil]

Where, in the penumbras of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does the Constitution leave room for "deference to the decisions made by the sovereign legislatures of the several states"?

When you have politicians and an electorate that mostly believes the constitution is a living document subject to the wims of the day, it doesn't matter. The constitution didn't leave room for Obamacare. Yet here we are.

I think we need to be very careful about laws that seem to benefit our side. There is another side who will figure out how to abuse the powers we give government.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Where does this idea come from? Heck, not even everyone could vote. No reason to make it readable by the masses.

I would say MAYBE the pamphleteering of the Federalist Papers might've been written to that level, but not the constitution itself. It was written as a legal document by and for people who were knowledgeable about those things.

The language doesn't seem to be loaded with legalese to me. Maybe that's from growing up with it present, i.e. my hindsight talking.

Re-read Heller.

I'm talking about the original intent, not the later interpretation. I've said for a long time that Scalia wrote Heller so that Kennedy would agree to it and make it the majority opinion, rather than the dissent it would have been without him, much as you described (below) in re: "what they could all live with".

If they wrote the 2A as you desire, then they would've been ignoring the fundamental reality that they each lived every single day. If the 2A was the result of the retcon fantasy that you describe, where was the instant abolition of all contrary state and local laws immediately after its passage?

I prefer to think that the framers of the constitution and the adopters of the Bill of Rights (which, as you likely know, happened about 4 years later), recognized reality and negotiated language that they could all live with.

It wasn't what any one of them would've written; it was what all of them would accept. (Well, a majority of them, at least.)

Yeah, I kinda figured out that 1787 and 1791 were about 4 years apart. Give or take a few months.

Of note, this is not some fantasy, but how I'm reading the plain text of the Amendments in question. The 1A was written specifically as a limitation upon Congress, not the several states, yes? Why did they not similarly write the 2A? Why did we later have to begin down the road of "incorporating" Amendments against the states, if the document was originally intended to apply to them?

What kinds of restrictions did their local laws permit that the 2A forbade them to implement at the federal level?

Please note as well that I'm not asking any of these questions in sarcasm, but in an attempt to increase my knowledge base.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[chipbennett]

The language doesn't seem to be loaded with legalese to me. Maybe that's from growing up with it present, i.e. my hindsight talking. I'm talking about the original intent, not the later interpretation. I've said for a long time that Scalia wrote Heller so that Kennedy would agree to it and make it the majority opinion, rather than the dissent it would have been without him, much as you described (below) in re: "what they could all live with".

Yeah, I kinda figured out that 1787 and 1791 were about 4 years apart. Give or take a few months.

Of note, this is not some fantasy, but how I'm reading the plain text of the Amendments in question. The 1A was written specifically as a limitation upon Congress, not the several states, yes? Why did they not similarly write the 2A? Why did we later have to begin down the road of "incorporating" Amendments against the states, if the document was originally intended to apply to them?

What kinds of restrictions did their local laws permit that the 2A forbade them to implement at the federal level?

Please note as well that I'm not asking any of these questions in sarcasm, but in an attempt to increase my knowledge base.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill is pretty much saying, and asking, exactly what I am. My understanding seems to align pretty well with his.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill is pretty much saying, and asking, exactly what I am. My understanding seems to align pretty well with his.

I think the Founders (and the writers of the BoR) gave us a good system.
I also think that some of the people who've come along since then could have screwed up a wet dream.

And probably did.

 

[MarkC]

I think the Founders (and the writers of the BoR) gave us a good system.
I also think that some of the people who've come along since then could have screwed up a wet dream.

And probably did.

Also, to clarify my individual position: I would love nothing better than to have a clear, clean national LTCH/CCW reciprocity. I just do not trust the feds, the killers of wet dreams, as noted by Bill, to implement it.

As a qualified retired LEO, I already enjoy a much greater freedom to carry a handgun into other states. However, despite the 2A and LEOSA, some jurisdictions, such as NY (magazine limits) and NJ (hollow point restrictions), still make it difficult to carry.

And, consider, if this is what they will do to out-of-state or qualified retired LEOs, think of what happens to some “mere citizen” who runs afoul of their byzantine and obnoxious schemes.

My point: there is going to be some regulation; we should be careful of who we want to do the regulating.

 

[T.Lex]

The language doesn't seem to be loaded with legalese to me. Maybe that's from growing up with it present, i.e. my hindsight talking. I'm talking about the original intent, not the later interpretation.

Then you are not talking about the original intent.

Seriously. I'm not joking.

If you want to talk original intent, re-read Heller. It talks about what the original intent was, or had to have been.

None of us were educated in the 1770s, so we really can't speak articulately about what was intended in the language they used.

That's why I called it retconning. You are taking contemporary language and retroactively making the old language consistent with contemporary ideas.

I've said for a long time that Scalia wrote Heller so that Kennedy would agree to it and make it the majority opinion, rather than the dissent it would have been without him, much as you described (below) in re: "what they could all live with".

And the legislators responsible for the 2A actual language were no less susceptible to the same process.

Of note, this is not some fantasy, but how I'm reading the plain text of the Amendments in question. The 1A was written specifically as a limitation upon Congress, not the several states, yes? Why did they not similarly write the 2A? Why did we later have to begin down the road of "incorporating" Amendments against the states, if the document was originally intended to apply to them?

What kinds of restrictions did their local laws permit that the 2A forbade them to implement at the federal level?

Please note as well that I'm not asking any of these questions in sarcasm, but in an attempt to increase my knowledge base.

Bill is pretty much saying, and asking, exactly what I am. My understanding seems to align pretty well with his.

Re-read Heller, and/or the briefs.

Scalia went to great lengths to describe the actual terms in use at the time and how they were used.

I just tried to find a good quotable section, but it is all just so good, that I couldn't find any one section.

Here's as close as I can come:

From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The 2A has never been absolute, nor intended to be read in absolutist terms.

 

[chipbennett]

Re-read Heller, and/or the briefs.

Scalia went to great lengths to describe the actual terms in use at the time and how they were used.

I just tried to find a good quotable section, but it is all just so good, that I couldn't find any one section.

Here's as close as I can come:

...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The 2A has never been absolute, nor intended to be read in absolutist terms.

Scalia is absolutely wrong here, especially the part about "sensitive places".

As for possession of firearms by felons: I have heard apocryphally that, in the old west times, when a man was released from prison, he was given a horse and a gun. I have a suspicion that the original authors considered offenses either so heinous that they were punishable by death, or else less so, and could be recompensed by serving time in jail - after which the convicted person was a free man, having paid his debt to society through incarceration. I hold the same to be true today. Those who are so violently criminal that they cannot be trusted with a firearm among free society should either be killed or incarcerated for life. Anyone who serves his sentence should have ALL rights restored upon completion of that sentence. And I think that stance is in line with the founders.

So, I think Scalia is wrong on that count, too.

And at the end of the day, I do not place the opinions of a handful of black-robed men and women above the plain meaning of the Rule of Law as defined by the Constitution.

 

[MarkC]

Then you are not talking about the original intent.

Seriously. I'm not joking.

If you want to talk original intent, re-read Heller. It talks about what the original intent was, or had to have been.

None of us were educated in the 1770s, so we really can't speak articulately about what was intended in the language they used.

That's why I called it retconning. You are taking contemporary language and retroactively making the old language consistent with contemporary ideas.



And the legislators responsible for the 2A actual language were no less susceptible to the same process.




Re-read Heller, and/or the briefs.

Scalia went to great lengths to describe the actual terms in use at the time and how they were used.

I just tried to find a good quotable section, but it is all just so good, that I couldn't find any one section.

Here's as close as I can come:


The 2A has never been absolute, nor intended to be read in absolutist terms.

Nicely done, counselor.

 

[MarkC]

Scalia is absolutely wrong here, especially the part about "sensitive places".

As for possession of firearms by felons: I have heard apocryphally that, in the old west times, when a man was released from prison, he was given a horse and a gun. I have a suspicion that the original authors considered offenses either so heinous that they were punishable by death, or else less so, and could be recompensed by serving time in jail - after which the convicted person was a free man, having paid his debt to society through incarceration. I hold the same to be true today. Those who are so violently criminal that they cannot be trusted with a firearm among free society should either be killed or incarcerated for life. Anyone who serves his sentence should have ALL rights restored upon completion of that sentence. And I think that stance is in line with the founders.

So, I think Scalia is wrong on that count, too.

And at the end of the day, I do not place the opinions of a handful of black-robed men and women above the plain meaning of the Rule of Law as defined by the Constitution.

Chip, I understand that we are going to disagree on this, as I believe that Scalia went to great lengths to do his very best to get it right. Please do not lose sight that someone has to interpret the written words so that we can have a consistent Rule of Law, and not all of us are in agreement as to what they say.

Although the system of black-robed men and women is not perfect, and sometimes even the best and most thoughtful judges get it wrong, it is vitally important to our system of ordered liberty to have consistent interpretations of the words that make up law, as we know it. Otherwise, if anyone was allowed to say what the law meant in his or her eyes, and have it binding on the rest of us, we descend into anarchy and, eventually, the tyranny of the strongest.

 

[jamil]

Chip, maybe there are circumstances where a person who has served his time might be considered too great a risk to be allowed to legally own firearms. It's easiest to just say, if he's too dangerous to carry a gun he's too dangerous to be let out. I think that's not practical in the real world, nor Is that likely to become normal practice. But rather having a felony automatically disqualify a person I'd rather that decision be explicitly ordered by a court, where evidence is presented and argued and there is a due process involved. Maybe a parole board would petition the court. Maybe prosecutors would seek that when trying the case. But it shouldn't be automatically prohibited.

 

[T.Lex]

Scalia is absolutely wrong here, especially the part about "sensitive places".

Where is he wrong? Does not the historical record support such limitations at the time the Constitution and 2A were written? If we are going to be strict constructionists, then we have to accept that dis-allowance of concealed carry is within the Constitution (at least by states).

If we accept that the Constitution is a living document that MUST be viewed as a framework upon which to build our modern society, then that's fine. But let's pick a lane.

As for possession of firearms by felons: I have heard apocryphally that, in the old west times, when a man was released from prison, he was given a horse and a gun. I have a suspicion that the original authors considered offenses either so heinous that they were punishable by death, or else less so, and could be recompensed by serving time in jail - after which the convicted person was a free man, having paid his debt to society through incarceration. I hold the same to be true today. Those who are so violently criminal that they cannot be trusted with a firearm among free society should either be killed or incarcerated for life. Anyone who serves his sentence should have ALL rights restored upon completion of that sentence. And I think that stance is in line with the founders.

So, I think Scalia is wrong on that count, too.

He cites actual written works of the day.

Your anecdote is, admittedly, apocryphal. And, the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

There is a balancing. Constitutionality is not binary, it is a spectrum. There are many regulations that CAN be constitutional, but not necessarily SHOULD be enacted. As a society (some states), concealed carry was legalized. That's fine. That's the way it should be. But it doesn't not nullify (sorry for the triple negative) the original limitation.

And at the end of the day, I do not place the opinions of a handful of black-robed men and women above the plain meaning of the Rule of Law as defined by the Constitution.

Then I expect your engineer's best effort to produce a textual argument from sources contemporary with the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to support your position. The Heller briefs provide the best compendium that I've ever seen on the subject.

Otherwise, your position is modern living-constitution fantasy on par with constitutional support for reproductive rights.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm confused. How, when I say I'm talking about original intent, not later interpretation, am I not talking about original intent?

The legislators crafting the 2A and indeed, the whole of the BoR were not less susceptible to "what compromise can we reach?", but they were more aware of what governmental power can lead to, as evidenced in part by the Powder Alarms that led up to the war they'd just fought. Yes, they kept powder and shot in a small building on the edge of town, not to keep people from being armed at home, but to prevent the disaster a fire in a home in town would cause. (and it's my understanding that they did keep small quantities at home as well.)

Chip made a couple of good points. First, the courts prior to the Heller case held prohibitions on concealed carry in the context that open carry was the norm, right? Not in the context that the carry of a firearm on one's person was subject to governmental permission.
Second, define "felon" in their terms, or for that matter, "mentally ill". It didn't mean PTSD, which didn't exist, nor did it mean depression due to one's parent having died, though delusions and/or psychosis, even if not termed such, seem to fit closer to the mark. Felon didn't mean "three DUIs" or "insider stock trading", but "murderer" or "rapist" or, God forbid, child molester.

Third, what places were "sensitive" in the late 1780s/early 1790s?
Last, up until 1968, what laws were there on the commercial sale of arms? You walked into the store, put your money on the counter, and walked out with your gun and ammo. No one escorted you to the door and handed it to you outside, no one did a background check, no one made you show ID. Your conditions were "do you have the money for it?" and "do I have it to sell and am I willing to sell it to you?"

If I'm wrong here, please explain. There are many times I think Chip's mind is in the right train of thought, but his execution and explanation of that line of thinking is a bit... confrontational and/or undiplomatic. Chip, I don't say that to be insulting, only that your manner sometimes is a little abrasive, at least in text on the internet, without verbal inflection. Note that I did not say you were mistaken. The "sensitive places" language that Scalia used, T, is the primary usage that I thought was a compromise to make five justices in favor of Heller going as it did. Had we had five or more strict constructionists, rather than such as Breyer, Ginsburg, etc. on the Court, I don't think Scalia would have minced words as it appears to me he did. I can re-read Heller all day and see nothing but the interpretation that Scalia wrote. The man was a strict constructionist, but he was also enough of a realist to write an opinion such that "Kennedy the weather vane" would concur and make it the opinion of the court rather than a strongly worded dissent.
Why should a government building restrict arms? I can see the accused, in court, being held in a disarmed condition, and I can even wrap my head around the restricting of arms by others in a courtroom; though I still don't agree with it, I can acknowledge that tempers do tend to flare there. I cannot understand why if I'm on city water, however, I should be disarmed to enter that building, solely because governmental activities occur there.
I can acknowledge and agree that someone entering a "school" for the purpose of causing death and destruction should be stopped. I can't agree that such a person, already bent on killing, gives a rat's tuchus about a minor law like that. I can't agree that solely because I crossed an arbitrary and imaginary line on the ground, I, an honest, peaceable citizen, should suddenly be branded a "felon", or that I'm OK as long as I throw a towel over the top of the gun on my car seat as I get out (having just removed it from my holster in compliance with said law) but if the butt of the gun is visible at the edge of that towel, I'm a felon.

Scenario: You drive to the local middle school to pick up your kid. You are armed with a pistol, as per your usual habit. As you watch your kid coming out, two or three other kids, all larger, pick up where they left off earlier, and one sucker-punches yours. You go to stop the fight... (***)Are you going to take time to take off the gun, lock it in a safe, lock the car, etc.? or just go stop the fight yourself. Should you really have to jump through all those hoops to keep your kid from getting pummeled? or, with disparity of force on your side, do you stay within the law within your car, roll down the window, and draw to stop the fight? (Yeah, I know you probably would not shoot a 7th or 8th grader.)

Call it a straw man if you like, but is this scenario, as written, up to the (***), so far-fetched? So much for "sensitive places", IMHO.

It's not a retcon to evaluate language. Do we know with certainty what the language meant? We know enough to identify what "well-regulated" meant, and obviously, it was not "governmentally controlled", but "well-trained"/"made regular".

I think the move away from absolutism comes from those who are fearful of what they cannot control, rather than trusting in the fact that those who cannot or will not control themselves will be taken care of by reaction to their misdeeds. They don't trust that the shooter at the water board will be dropped by the citizen behind him.

Blessings,
Bill

Then you are not talking about the original intent.

Seriously. I'm not joking.

If you want to talk original intent, re-read Heller. It talks about what the original intent was, or had to have been.

None of us were educated in the 1770s, so we really can't speak articulately about what was intended in the language they used.

That's why I called it retconning. You are taking contemporary language and retroactively making the old language consistent with contemporary ideas.



And the legislators responsible for the 2A actual language were no less susceptible to the same process.




Re-read Heller, and/or the briefs.

Scalia went to great lengths to describe the actual terms in use at the time and how they were used.

I just tried to find a good quotable section, but it is all just so good, that I couldn't find any one section.

Here's as close as I can come:


The 2A has never been absolute, nor intended to be read in absolutist terms.

 

[T.Lex]

@chipbennett

I thought of an analogy that might connect with you (pardon the pun) (that's foreshadowing).

Relatively contemporaneous with the Constitution (if you count 20ish years), Ben Franklin wrote about electricity. He did not suggest that electricity would be delivered to every home or even any sort of distribution. (Tesla wouldn't be born for another 100 years.)

Saying that the Framers intended a modern result with the 2A would be like saying Franklin intended a similarly modern result when he wrote about how electricity flows.

Yes, the modern view flows from the original language, just like the modern electrical grid flows from Franklin's experiments, but that does not mean either was intended.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm confused. How, when I say I'm talking about original intent, not later interpretation, am I not talking about original intent?

You said:

The language doesn't seem to be loaded with legalese to me. Maybe that's from growing up with it present, i.e. my hindsight talking.

And I agree. It is your hindsight. When you parse the language in a modern way, you are not talking about original intent. You are talking about modern intent.

Scalia was not conveying a "modern" interpretation, although he did the interpreting in the modern era. He (and the concurring justices) looked to the interpretation of the language at or near the time it was written. Go ahead, read Heller again and tell me he didn't look to contemporaneous sources.

The legislators crafting the 2A and indeed, the whole of the BoR were not less susceptible to "what compromise can we reach?", but they were more aware of what governmental power can lead to, as evidenced in part by the Powder Alarms that led up to the war they'd just fought. Yes, they kept powder and shot in a small building on the edge of town, not to keep people from being armed at home, but to prevent the disaster a fire in a home in town would cause. (and it's my understanding that they did keep small quantities at home as well.)

This is discussed in Heller, and in the briefs.

It matters not WHY the limitations were in place. It matters that limitations were recognized.

If you want to look at what they were trying to accomplish, we cannot also then ignore that they were trying to limit the federal government, for the very reason you mention, and allow significant state independence, as evidenced by the compromise on slavery. Also consider the balance they were trying to strike after the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

Chip made a couple of good points. First, the courts prior to the Heller case held prohibitions on concealed carry in the context that open carry was the norm, right?

Not right. Well, not specific enough. Concealed carry was limited for a variety of reasons by states. That is not the only reason, but it is one of them.

Not in the context that the carry of a firearm on one's person was subject to governmental permission.

I don't understand. They often, including in Indiana, regulated who could carry a firearm. As I recall (and I even recall KF correcting me on this), an early Indiana law limited the carrying of a concealed firearm to "travelers." It was assumed that state government had the authority for such regulations.

Second, define "felon" in their terms, or for that matter, "mentally ill".

No, thank you, although I am willing to let each state determine that. Just like each state may decide whether a felon can vote.

Third, what places were "sensitive" in the late 1780s/early 1790s?

Depends on what state you were in, or even municipality.

Apocryphally, some places in the old west required people to give up their guns upon entry into town.

Last, up until 1968, what laws were there on the commercial sale of arms? You walked into the store, put your money on the counter, and walked out with your gun and ammo. No one escorted you to the door and handed it to you outside, no one did a background check, no one made you show ID. Your conditions were "do you have the money for it?" and "do I have it to sell and am I willing to sell it to you?"

If I'm wrong here, please explain.

Wrong about what?

What you describe and government's power to regulate those things are not mutually exclusive.

The "sensitive places" language that Scalia used, T, is the primary usage that I thought was a compromise to make five justices in favor of Heller going as it did. Had we had five or more strict constructionists, rather than such as Breyer, Ginsburg, etc. on the Court, I don't think Scalia would have minced words as it appears to me he did.

Five strict constructionists would've given us fundamentally the same opinion, maybe even worse if we allow that DC (as a pseudo-state) may've had the authority that the original states had.

I can re-read Heller all day and see nothing but the interpretation that Scalia wrote. The man was a strict constructionist, but he was also enough of a realist to write an opinion such that "Kennedy the weather vane" would concur and make it the opinion of the court rather than a strongly worded dissent.

Functionally, it absolutely doesn't matter. He wrote the opinion. It says what it says. It is binding precedent as written, not "as fantasized."

Why should a government building restrict arms? I can see the accused, in court, being held in a disarmed condition, and I can even wrap my head around the restricting of arms by others in a courtroom; though I still don't agree with it, I can acknowledge that tempers do tend to flare there. I cannot understand why if I'm on city water, however, I should be disarmed to enter that building, solely because governmental activities occur there.

Because the constitution allows it and states desire it to be so.

It's not a retcon to evaluate language. Do we know with certainty what the language meant? We know enough to identify what "well-regulated" meant, and obviously, it was not "governmentally controlled", but "well-trained"/"made regular".

I'm embarrassed to keep saying this, but re-read Heller. It is discussed.

I think the move away from absolutism comes from those who are fearful of what they cannot control, rather than trusting in the fact that those who cannot or will not control themselves will be taken care of by reaction to their misdeeds.

In regard to the 2A, there cannot have been a "move away from absolutism" when there was no absolutism to begin with.

 

[2A_Tom]

.

 

[foszoe]

Could those that opposed the Civil Rights act be using the same logic that those here saying National Reciprocity is wrong?


I am a simpleton so I think like Trump.


A man is a man he is not 3/5s a man or what ever the slave definition was back then.

For me, a man/woman is entitled to all the same rights so in the Constitution, a document meant to be interpreted, if we decided that a man/woman is a man/woman no matter how the color of their skin, the religion practiced etc should have the exact same rights in all situations. That's how us simpletons/Trump think.

If that can be accomplished why did we need a Civil Rights Act? It seems however, that we couldn't so what made the Civil Rights act necessary?

In a similar vein with the 2A, the wording seems so simple. I thought the Bill of Rights conferred rights to all men. One being the 2A. If the states infringe on these rights then we appeal "all the way to the Supreme Court" where it is decided if the state's restrictions is legitimate. If we can have a 2A rights act, why is it necessarily different from the Civil Rights act in how it works to fix where the past interpretation was incorrect.


Divorced from all the legalese and left with pragmatic thinking that is how it should work, if it doesn't its broken.