The Second Amendment, as Applied
AM-15 Machine Gun, now apparently legal to possess in Kansas
The Second Amendment as written and ratified: “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 Second Amendment, as applied by US Federal Judge John W. Broomes of the Kansas District: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, t [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
From the top of Broomes’ ruling on Wednesday tossing out a gun possession charge:
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on Second Amendment grounds. (Doc. 26.) A response and a reply have been filed (Docs. 28, 29), and the court held a hearing to establish additional facts about the weapons charged. The motion is thus ripe for review. The court finds that the Second Amendment applies to the weapons charged because they are “bearable arms” within the original meaning of the amendment. The court further finds that the government has failed to establish that this nation’s history of gun regulation justifies the application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) to Defendant. The court therefore grants the motion to dismiss.
And just what were the weapons in question that were charged?
I. BackgroundDefendant Tamori Morgan is charged with two counts of possessing a machinegun [sic throughout] in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). (Doc. 1.) Specifically, Defendant is charged with possessing an Anderson Manufacturing, model AM-15 .300 caliber machinegun and a machinegun conversion device. It was established at the hearing that the conversion device is a so-called “Glock switch” which allows a Glock, model 33, .357 SIG caliber firearm to fire as an automatic weapon.
Making machine guns great again. Wonderful.
Just as the Alito-authored Dobbs spawned a host of ugly laws, regulations, and ripple effects across the country, the Thomas-authored Bruen is now doing the same. Welcome to the Federalist Society Judicial System.
Elections matter, people. Elections matter a lot.
There are a number of “arms” that are perfectly “keepable” and “bearable” that are illegal. These include hand grenades, shoulder fired anti – aircraft and tank (car) weapons, bazookas, land mines, and any number of explosive devices. The Second Amendment has been gutted further to replace ‘arms’ with ‘assault rifles’. No other weapon of war is permitted, although they should all be legal under the literal reading of the law.
Or instead, they should all be illegal.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “Bill Wiesel” which triggered auto-moderation; I have edited this once to match your established username. Check your browser’s cache and autofill. /~Rayne]
Read the first clause again, which contextualizes the right in terms of a “well-regulated militia, i.e., the right is not only not absolute, it is conditioned on some level of regulation. That would be a literal reading of the amendment. Note: an amendment is not a law.
Your counsel amounts to throwing up one’s hands and giving up, given that both of your “proposals” are equally unlikely to ever come about.
I’ve always read the entire Amendment, not the part highlighted by the NRA, to read that firearm ownership must be in service of and accountable to a higher authority. Therefore, the federal government is not permitted to punish individuals for following militia mandates.
The militias it’s talking about were the equivalent of the National Guard and reserve units, not the “any lot of people who want to shoot stuff up”. They had regular drills and were expected to turn out for defense purposes. That’s WHY Revere was riding that evening – he was rousing the militia for defense.
I don’t see how the “therefore” follows. In a state that is created as a federation, the higher authority would be the federal authority, not the individual units making up the federation.
“Read the first clause again”? The one that’s crossed out in the article? The one that SCOTUS has declared invalid? That one?
The point of my comment is that the Second Amendment has been gutted in other ways. Notably replacing “arms” with “AR-15’s”
Some people like to contend that it’s important to keep the original meaning of the text in mind. Here’s Elie Mystal’s take (from Allow Me to Retort):
Thank you and Elie for saying the quiet part out loud.
That’s exactly right.
Where’s my nuclear warhead
When I discuss limitations of the Second Amendment with weapons aficionados, they often argue on the onset that there are no limits to the type of weapons one might own.
I can usually stop them though. AR-15? Sure! Bazooka? Sure! Tank? Sure! Davey Crocket? What’s that?
A Davy Crocket was a proposed shoulder launched tactical nuke for battlefield use. The program ended in the 1950s after concerns the nuclear fallout couldn’t be contained to only enemy positions were raised.
I’ve never had any gun nut agree that it would be a good idea for civilians to bear one of those arms. That’s when I have them. They AGREE there should be some LIMITATIONS!
Now we’re just negotiating exactly what those limitations should be.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “kyle_in_TPA”; I have edited it this one time to match your established username. Please make a note of it and check your browser’s cache and autofill. /~Rayne]
Sorry, I knew the moment I hit post that I used the wrong name. Unfortunately, it was not editable once posted. Thanks for correcting!
[FYI – there’s a four-minute window for editing a comment; you should see a link for editing after attempting to publish. If you don’t see it do mention it in a comment and I’ll look into it. /~Rayne]
There’s a good article at The Brennan Center called “How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment”
I liked this part: “As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, ‘A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane’.”
https://www.brennancenter(.dot)org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
JPJ,
The “therefore” follows because states may create militias and internal peacekeeping forces. Do I like Ronnie DeSantis’s “election integrity paramilitary force”? Absolutely not. But it is about DeSantis, not that a state can ordain and regulate a militia. It still leaves a trail of accountability. Even if Idaho passes a law or amendment to their state constitution that allows militias to self-regulate, that is a written law for those dissatisfied to target.
Also, the colonial militias filled an important gap in the British colonial administration. Native American attacks on settlers (justified or not) demanded defensive forces of larger scale than single households could provide, necessitating EITHER an expensive Regular Army presence along the entire frontier OR state/local militias of volunteers (with maybe some minor subsidization). The tensions leading to the American Revolution were on whether and how to allocate expenses from British-French European conflicts necessitating Regular Army presence in America. Under that context, state militias were a thing.
That photo looks a lot like the decal on my MAGA neighbor’s black pickup truck.
Possibly from here ? :
https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/products/black-rifle-ar-pvc-patch?variant=27-030-119-010
Seems like vets should be the experts on why amateurs should not own military grade hardware. This article has stuck with me:
“I don’t want an assault rifle, because I don’t want to think of my home country as a battlefield. I don’t want civilians to own assault rifles, because I think the risks outweigh the rewards. If people really do believe that they need them, maybe it’s because they see a battlefield where others don’t.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/magazine/i-used-an-assault-rifle-in-the-army-i-dont-think-civilians-should-own-them.html
I like that point of view.
“I’m not saying you shouldn’t be prepared for war, I’m just saying you shouldn’t be prepared to start a war in an elementary school”.
Wondering how the courts will interpret some of the new small and portable laser weapons. Does the 2A only cover kinetic projectiles?
The total absurdity of the specifications/limitations makes it possible to 3D manufacture so many devices of killing. It’s a bit like the DEA trying to limit drugs based on a specific chemical composition. Easy to switch a couple of molecules to evade the law and cause more mayhem.
This is how drug companies managed to extend the patents over various drugs, much to the chagrin of the FDA. Change a couple of things that don’t affect the efficacy, and you’re good for another cycle of patent protection.
What you write sounds snippy enough, but it is not accurate. The FDA is not in the business of protecting owners rights about a drug. It is only about public safety.
The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.
I know what the FDA does, and I also know what pharmaceutical companies do.
The FTC does the patent fights, but the pharmaceutical companies exploit the FDA’s rules that govern which drugs can move to generics and under what circumstances to improperly extend their patent rights.
If you’ve got a problem with this, take it up with Senator Warren:
I wonder if the SC would allow a phased plasma rifle in a 40 watt range.
Yes, I have long wondered why that inconvenient part about a “well-regulated militia” seems to be roundly ignored by gun-owners, jurists, originalists and all.
I’m guessing that for all the heavy-duty legalistic sophistry deployed in aid of the NRA, the writers of the 2nd Amendment had in mind something rather more like the Swiss and their home-based territorials than lone AR15-toting teenagers wandering around looking for somebody to shoot.
But originalists these days do seem to be rather fond of pick-and-mix.
Somewhere along the line, the understanding of the Second Amendment in conservative circles switched from a means for the citizenry to defend the government to a means for the citizenry to defend itself *from* the government.
Exactly. Agreed. And I blame law enforcement personnel for that happening.
It wasn’t really about defending the government.. why would there be an amendment in the bill of rights to give people the power to defend the government? That’s absurd on it’s face. It was always about overthrowing the government
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We have adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short and too common it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]
The Constitution doesn’t grant rights, it acknowledges rights while establishing how the federal government is supposed to operate and the limits within which it’s supposed to do so. The Bill of Rights are some of the limits spelled out.
The 2nd Amendment acknowledges guns were owned by citizens but the reasons the government wouldn’t take them away under its regulatory powers was that it needed to be able to muster 18th century citizens to act in place of or to augment a standing army. It was about the citizens as a well-regulated militia, or did you miss the argument here that the current Roberts SCOTUS ignores the founders’ rationale, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”?
Welcome to emptywheel.
Amazingly, the folks in the same circles as the originalists, and often the same folks, do the same with their favorite religious texts.
I’ve always wondered, should the federal government start to regulate the Three Percenters, or any of the white supremacist organizations on the theory that the 2A they revere declaims a “well regulated militia……”?
“Keep and bear” ≠ “own”.
Bingo!
“Just as the Alito-authored Dobbs spawned a host of ugly laws, regulations, and ripple effects across the country, the Thomas-authored Bruen is now doing the same. Welcome to the Federalist Society Judicial System.
Elections matter, people. Elections matter a lot.”
Exactly! You are right!
I’ve always paid close attention to the Second Amendment and guns in general.
I started cleaning my father’s service revolver at age three.
At age three and a half, I fired his service revolver at the local pistol range where he had to regularly qualify.
By age five, I had already received safety training and carried and fired a sixteen gauge shotgun while dove hunting.
At age eight, I received additional safety training and, therefore, received my legal hunting license.
I’ve been around guns all my life.
The Bottom line: guns are not toys. They are dangerous. They kill people, and they permanently injure people.
There is no reason for a civilian to own and operate an automatic weapon. Period.
You have a long history with firearms. Many of us grew up with them in the family, usually with a purpose of bringing home some game but also the necessary target shooting.
I’m not sure in this society, anymore, that we need to give unfettered access to such lethal weapons (automatic or semi- or not). Many other (more?) civilized nations have changed their rules to require strict licensing and rationales for being able to use such a weapon.
My gut feeling is that this hoisting of the “right to bear arms” and NRA zealotry was done on purpose — to tear at the fabric of this country. Insidious tactics practiced very well by some propaganda masters.
Jamal Greene in his book on rights that Ed Walker is reviewing has a short discussion and historical summary of the second amendment at the founding.
“The right to bear arms…was not primarily protected in order to wage war on the federal government or to resist some shadowy tyranny, but rather in anticipation of quite specific threats to public order – from common criminals to political rioters to revolting slaves to hostile indigenous tribes – that armed white citizens might be called upon to resist. As Akhil Reed Amur notes, the “militia” did not refer to what we might think of today as the National Guard, but to the full body of arms-bearing citizens.
This understanding makes sense of the numerous state and and local regulations of guns at the time. States’ ability to regulate firearms was inseparable from their dominion over the militia. The most common regulation of firearms in the 18th century involved controlling the militia itself. Thus the government could keep a registry of who had firearms. It could require citizens to report for inspection of their weapons. Several states restricted Black Americans from carrying guns. Founding era Americans were committed less to a bunker mentality or private self-defense than to white communal self-reliance, what Jefferson called the “boldness, enterprise and independence of mind” that gun ownership could nurture.”
I agree with your comments.
I had an epiphany fifty-three years ago and stopped killing any animal or bird that moved when I had a weapon in my hand. I stopped killing fish at the same time.
A late friend of mine was a Sturm Ruger heir. I learned a lot from him about the profitability of gun and ammunition manufacturers. They know how to use the Second Amendment to their financial advantage.
A 16 gauge at age 5? You must have been a gorilla. A 20 gauge at age 6 duck hunting was as much as I could handle.
[FYI – this comment triggered the spam filter because of a typo in your email address. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill. /~Rayne]
No, just an average sized five year old.
After shooting the 16 gauge and not leading the dove properly, my father handed me a double barrel side by side 12 gauge to shoot next.
Missed another dove, but successfully passed the double barrel test by not squeezing both triggers at the same time.
Being a former Marine veteran, he was pleased to see me not screw up, even at age five.
One day 9 year-old me was playing with my friend across the street. He asked if I wanted to see his Dad’s gun collection. Well, of course I did!
His dad had a variety of near antique weapons, both rifles and hand guns. They were just stacked in closets around the house. They were unloaded and as my friend handed me each one I would pretend to shoot it. Pow! Pow! Pow!
We wandered room to room, closet to closet, and eventually wound up in his parent’s bedroom. He asked if I wanted to see the coolest gun of all. “Sure!” He climbed on their bed and used that height to boost himself on top of a stand-up dresser next to the bed. He reached down behind the dresser and produced a .45. His dad was an Air Force Reservist and it was his service weapon. I took the gun, pointed it at my friend and pulled the trigger. Pow! Pow! Pow!
He slapped the gun away and told me it was loaded. Only a safety prevented me from blowing my friend’s brains out.
Counting my time at the Academy I have 25 years of military service. I have carried and fired all manner of weapons, both professionally and recreationally. I wore an Expert Marksman ribbon on my chest. And I will never, ever allow a gun in my house.
Your child may know everything there is to know about gun safety. I promise you the kid across the street does not.
Agreed.
Your house and gun collection not under lock sounds similar to my house in the 1950s and early 1960s.
I never let the neighbor kids touch the guns, but they were eager to see them.
Come on you people, we clearly have the right to have and carry all of these arms…
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=18th+century+firearms&t=ipad&iax=images&ia=images
The Second Amendment is an anachronism long overdue to be amended for safety.
Well if the second amendment is still in full force well there shouldn’t be no harm. Or no legally owing the right to bare arms
Fifty-five-year-old Judge Broomes, a Trump appointee, was top of his class…at a mediocre law school only a tad better than the one Trump’s parking lot attorney went to. He was among Trump’s first appointments to the bench.
His interpretation of the Second Amendment is…a tad strained. But any interpretation will survive S.Ct. review if it yields the right decision. He quotes half of the Second Amendment. He invents a category he calls “bearable arms” – if you can pick it up and walk with it, it’s protected by the Second Amendment, regardless of whether it existed at the time the amendment was adopted – a very anti-originalist stance.
He essentially laughs at the govt’s attempt to enforce a congressional statute. He focuses on the trivial and ignores the threat to the public of merely possessing a weapon able automatically shoot a .357 magnum, one of the most powerful handgun rounds in existence.
I know a number of Washburn Law grads, who are (broadly speaking) good lawyers. They are probably beating their heads against their desks at this ruling.
Fair enough. At least he’s not a parking garage lawyer.
Why stop at machine guns? Kansas – home of the backpack nuke.
Like in Rahimi, I have to agree with both Justice Jackson and Clarence Thomas. According to precedent set by Bruen, if there wasn’t an explicit ban on machine guns in 1788, then any restriction on firearms is illegal. Obviously I prefer Justice Jackson’s concurrence, that the Court should overrule Bruen as unworkable. I’m not sure we’ll see explicit “ruing” by Justices over Bruen, but we will see substantial effort wasted to clean up the mess created. Chief Justice Roberts can write a thousand pages about how lower courts should be “reasonable” in their interpretations but Bruen was not written with any “reasonableness” in its standard.
It all seems a tad circular, which I assume is the intent. If machine guns were unregulated in 1788, they can’t be regulated now. But since there were no machine guns in 1788, there was no need or ability to regulate them. How can a weapon that did not exist in 1788 receive the benefit of the law, if those who write later laws do not also have the ability to adjust their regulations to take into account technological change. The framework seems bent, in favor of gun use, which is a policy choice, not a legal interpretation.
Then, there’s the whole “well-regulated militia” bit Broomes left out when reciting the text of the amendment. It’s one thing to say the Supremes have, in effect, invalidated the important, opening phrase by judicial fiat. It’s intellectually dishonest to ignore that language entirely, but that seems to be a common trait among Trump appointees.
The pickle gun existed
Although that describes the situation it was created for, it was called a puckle gun and it was designed nearly 100 years later.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guns/puckle-gun.html
My mistake, it was the Maxim machine gun 100 years later (rare examples still being used in Ukraine today). The puckle gun was around at that time in 1788.
Yeah, all two of them. They were never used. Not much of a precedent to stand on. But if you want to be consistent, puckle guns should be allowed, but no other arms not in existence in 1788. Otherwise, if citizens benefit from changes in weapons technology, so do regulators.
Shall not be infringed…except at Trump rallies.
…and Boise airport, evidently:
https://bsky.app/profile/jbf1755.bsky.social/post/3l2hyhputnt2j
Aug 24, 2024 at 11:33 AM
The irony is, we’ve never had to argue about the meaning of those words, as it’s clear- see:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16.
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
So yes, the militia is what we call today the National Guard.
See also the act of 1795, which made the President its commander, and the National Defense Act of 1916, which put it directly under the power of the Federal Government.
So, have the Supreme Courtesans had any comment on that?
The way to get Republicans –like Ronald Reagan– to enact gun controls is, apparently, to have the Black Panthers demonstrate why it might be necessary.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/lasting-legacy-black-panther-protest-california-capitol/
The big ruling that’s the foundation for all modern SCOTUS cases on this is District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which was the first ruling creating an individual right to bear arms.
That’s how new all this “conservative” rulings on the subject are.
Interestingly enough, even that had significant limits- Scalia was clear that the government had the right to regulate what kind of arms a private person could have, but also, that they could not outlaw all of them, as he believed people had a right to self-defense.
So until just a few years ago, it was still legal for states to say “no machine guns”.
Kind of wonder why we haven’t seen a tack in lawsuits against perps who committed gun violence for not acting in accordance with disciplined regular militia, if that’s the reason rights the right to bear arms is enshrined.
Ditto law enforcement officers and their departments or agencies when an officer extrajudicially kills a citizen because they are clearly outside regular discipline and training.
There’s no reason why we cannot pursue mandatory gun education and training as well as inspections and registration as part of that organizing and discipline. Gun owners can’t reasonably be called up to serve reliably if they aren’t well regulated.
Inconvenient historical context. American revolutionaries were wary of a permanent military force. Militias were employed to combat Native American tribes, suppress slave uprisings and hunt down runaway slaves. They were also considered essential for defending against potential foreign attacks.
But “defending against potential foreign attacks” was much less necessary to white colonizers after the Revolutionary War than keeping brown people under control.
-__-
The Second Amendment was ratified in the same year as the Haitian revolution, so yeah
There’s nothing “inconvenient” about it. Militia substituted for the standing army Congress didn’t want and wouldn’t pay for. Until the de facto standing army became a thing, militia were first responders. They remained that for a whole variety of local purposes.
It’s a bad ruling, but another thing to consider is Randy Weaver not being sanely treated by Janet Reno’s people. That should not fade as time passes. the Waco burn-out also was government overreach. I believe “balance” is the operative word. Hunting down the Aryan Nation seems proper, they were robbing banks and had killed a talk radio host, so again, balanced government action needs to be recognized and mentioned. There currently is much public question and debate over no-knock warrants, and there are judges who rubber stamp. Kent State should never have happened, and would not have, with a “well regulated” militia.
What we need is a Bed-in for Peace week
Guns suck and please take the word “militia” out of America’s vocabulary.
The world changed when the Supreme Court said that “Corporations are people”
Lawyers will and can make up all kind of fucking arguments to prove their points.
“Guns suck and please take the word “militia” out of America’s vocabulary.”
Warm up your time machine and have a conversation with the nation’s founders.
Life preservers are a good idea. It’s best not to need one, but when you do, there’s no substitute for them, or a lawyer.
Thanks for your recommendation but I’d rather talk to Abraham Lincoln and ask him some questions about the Civil War.
Amateurs. It does not matter what the 2A says because we are a Christian nation. Show me in my $60 Trump bible where Jesus said I can’t own an AR-15. You can’t. I win.
An excellent book on the subject of the 2nd Amendment is “Madison’s Militia:The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” by historian Carl T. Bogus. One of the things he points out is that the language appears to be adapted from the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, and 4 existing state constitutions. And *none* of those were thought to confer an individual right to own firearms. Rather, they were considered a collective right inextricably connected with militias. This is a part of history that our very amateur historians on the Supreme Court seem to have missed.
He also explores what the militia was supposed to be for. He argues with quite a bit of force that by 1778 it was well known that militias were worthless in fighting regular professional troops, and the primary purpose was so that slave patrols would remain armed.
As for the idea advanced by many 2nd Amendment enthusiasts that it is somehow about arming citizens for revolution and insurrection, it is almost too silly to take seriously. What government, in its organic document, would provide for the means for its overthrow? As Article I provides, the militia is to be used to suppress insurrections, and Article II says that the President is the Commander in Chief of all the state militias. The idea of arming citizens to carry on an insurrection while the government is trying to suppress it seems highly dubious.
The questions of whether, and how, citizens obtained arms, and permission to “keep and bear” them come to mind: What were the conditions under which citizens were allowed to keep and bear arms? Was militia service essential?
0. Were arms issued to citizens by the militia, for official duties?
1. Were citizens expected to provide their own arms? If so, wouldn’t that imply a right to individual ownership?
2. If citizens owned arms, were they required to perform militia duty?
3. If they refused militia duty, could their arms be seized?
Etc.
The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, when used to promote state militias. Not for every other purpose. The range of firearms that existed in 1788 was limited. The language confused no one.
Besides, every constitutional right is subject to reasonable regulation, to protect and find a balance with competing interests. Except the sacred Second. Seventy percent or so of Americans actually favor gun regulation. The Supreme Court majority’s tortuous interpretations put it in the extreme, like those who profit from their sale. It also likes to confuse its policy choices with intellectually hoest legal interpretations.
To avoid further pestering this thread to get clear answers to my questions, and not knowing where this might be clearly laid out, I put the question to ChatGPT 4o, which provided what seem to be good answers, so I capsulized them here (232 words):
**Unstated Rights and Historical Context**
While the Second Amendment’s primary concern was the maintenance of a militia, the right to bear arms for hunting and self-defense was a deeply embedded part of the culture at the time, which perhaps explains why it was not explicitly stated in the text. Firearms were regulated in various ways during Colonial times, reflecting a balance between ensuring public safety and maintaining the necessary means for defense.
**Firearm Regulation in Colonial Times**
Firearms were not unregulated in Colonial America. Various forms of regulation existed, both for public safety and to ensure that militias were adequately armed:
1. **Militia Laws:** Many colonies had laws requiring able-bodied men to own and maintain firearms for militia service, and specified the type and quality of weapons to possess. Failure to comply could result in penalties.
2. **Gunpowder Storage Laws:** Regulations on safe storage.
3. **Restrictions on Certain Groups:** Such as enslaved or Indigenous peoples, were prohibited or severely restricted from owning firearms.
4. **Sabbath Laws:** In some places, there were restrictions on when and where firearms could be discharged, such as prohibitions on hunting on Sundays.
“While the Second Amendment’s primary concern was the maintenance of a militia, the right to bear arms for hunting and self-defense was a deeply embedded part of the culture at the time, which perhaps explains why it was not explicitly stated in the text.”
Every one of those gun owners were also potential militia members who could be called up. What wasn’t spelled out was that they were the answer to the lack of a standing army.
Another point – all 50 states prohibit private militias. And even Scalia said the Second Amendment “does not
prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008)(citing Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)). So, “militia” means the lawfully organized state militias, not a bunch of random people getting together to dress up like soldiers and shoot off guns.
The problem seems to be the complete reading out of the “militia” clause of the 2nd Amendment so as to make it an individual right. As you say, this is an intellectually dishonest exercise which is about the personal policy choices of the judges, not a valid legal construction.
I hope that was snark, because ChatGPT is a stand-up comic’s version of writing and analysis.
Guns are mostly useless until they are loaded. Why can’t government tax the hell out of ammunition. Also why not require chips in each bullet to trace them if they end up in the wrong place. Need I say the way tobacco use is controlled is a good example of how this can be done. ‘Don’t take your guns to town son, leave your guns at home.’
Yeah, we need bullet control:
Chris Rock — Bullet Control (HD)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw
I seem to re-call that the Court looked back from 1791, but never forward to 1792 when the framework constructed around the #2A was formulated. The Founders did not complain about the constraints placed on Arms as wells as each State’s responsibility in aiding with the Militia’s regulation.
http://www.constitution.org/1-Activism/mil/mil_act_1792.htm