I grew up a Navy Brat. I went to collage and found myself the only conservative within my social group. I remember attending a political rally where my date gushed about “She’s going to be the first female vice-president!”

My date and I stayed friends, but we were not in a relationship when I questioned her about what the candidates were actually saying.

Throughout my life the left has always told me how much they hate my country, how evil we are.

In 1971 soldiers coming home from Vietnam were calling my country evil and claiming that the military of my country was murdering women and children in Vietnam

I rode my bike over 500 miles the week after 9/11. The entire country felt silent. The flags had gone up on the over passes. The country came together.

Months later they were chanting “Bush lied! People died!” because they didn’t find WMDs in Iraq. As my mentor put it: Iraq is about the size of California, see if you can find a couple of 55gal drums that hold biological weapons. At some point my put together a more complete breakdown of WMDs in Iraq.

We have the wife of the President of the United States:

The left is only “proud” when they are in control. When they lose the threaten to leave. If you don’t vote for them it is the destruction of our democracy.

The right travels a different path. I grew up with “I disagree with you but will defend to the death your right to say it.” “My country, right or wrong.” “Our country is the best.” “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

I’m proud of my country, even with Biden as President. I’m proud of my country, even as Obama tours the world bowing to heads of state. I’m always proud of my country.

There are events I’m not proud of, there are people I’m not proud of, but my country I’m proud of.

As suggested by Curby.

It is difficult to see why the British are so keen on removing knives from the general populace. If the goal of the gun control people was control, they have it. They have managed to remove arms and the ability to defend yourself from the subjects of Great Britain.

“Gun control isn’t about controlling guns, it is about control.” This is how we see it. Removing firearms from the general population of a country shifts control to the government and their thugs. Be it “official” thugs, or the “unofficial” thugs.

I’m an old fart. I’ve had a few interactions with law enforcement. The thing I quickly learned is the politeness of an officer veries in relationship to the number of legally armed people in the population or in the power differential between the citizen and the law enforcement officer.

The politiest cops I’ve ever encountered during a traffic stop were the MPs on post. Post had more stars running around than MGM in their hayday. I’ve observed the MPs pulling over a classic Mustang that was certainly speeding. The first MP went up to the drivers window and the other MP went into the drivers blind spot. The second MP had his holster flap released and his hand on his sidearm, ready. The first MP was exceedingly polite.

Why? The person that he stopped in that Mustang was just as likely to be a 2 star general as private.

When I’ve been stopped in shall issue states the cops have always been very polite. The rudest, nastiest cops have all been in no issue and “may issue” states.

If you watch British cop shows you will see them pushing their way into people homes all the time. Even if there are laws requiring warrants or permission cops just push in. There is very little risk. My Canadian friends tell me the same thing. Even though they don’t have to allow the cops in, cops push in all the time.

The last time the cops were at my house they were told to get off my porch and to step back before I exited to talk with him.

And he did.

When the people are armed, government is restricted. When the people are unarmed, the government is unrestricted. If there are restrictions in that case it comes from different parts of the government, think coups

Gun grabbers like to talk about “gun violence” as if guns were violent. They are not. My guns have never performed a single act, much less a violent act. They are inanimate objects. They have no soul, no personality, no will. They only do what a person causes them to do.

So programs aimed at reducing “gun violence” or improving “gun safety” by placing infringements on the people are doomed to fail. They are not addressing the right thing. They are targeting the law abiding gun owner and his right to keep and bear arms and ignoring the criminal.

It doesn’t matter to a mother if her child is killed with a rock, club, car or knive. Her child is dead. It is a horrific moment and I hope I never am in that situation. But if her child is killed with a gun her hurt is still the same but there are actors immediately jumping to direct that hurt into anger at the gun and all gun owners.

There was a short video a few years ago from a booth where “Moms Demand” was there talking about how they were all about “gun safety”. Somebody videoed while they were badgered with questions about how many trigger locks they had given out, how many safety courses had they taught, what educational materials did they have for k-5? The two women just got up and walked away rather than engage.

It is about infringing on gun rights and not about “gun safety” or “reducing gun violence” If you want to reduce “gun violence” then reduce violence.

One of Philadelphia’s key community-based anti-violence programs is disorganized, failing to properly train and empower staffers, struggling to achieve basic goals, and not ready to be evaluated on whether its efforts are meaningfully reducing the city’s gun violence.

So we have yet another example of a government to leftist money pipeline. That has no real goals and has managed to spend $5.3 million and has nothing to show for it.

They don’t even have a plan because they are so disorganized. Likely because they are afraid to do what is needed. Take criminals off the streets.

Community Crisis Intervention Program Evaluation

Of course, being a democrat project, failure is not an option. If it fails, it is because it wasn’t given enough funds or enough resources or enough time. Just try again, harder.

Erica Atwood, the city’s senior director for criminal justice and public safety, acknowledged in an interview that the reports pointed out some fundamental shortcomings. But she said she viewed the assessment as an opportunity to improve CCIP and actually expand it — correcting flaws identified in the reports by adding things like a director, more qualified staff members, and better training for a program she still views as an essential undertaking.

“I read it as: ‘We’ve got to do better. We’ve got to make changes. These are the changes we need to make, and we need to make them ASAP,’ ” Atwood said. “This work is way too important for us to kind of be lagging and dragging.”

A key Philly gun violence prevention program is struggling to meet basic goals, new report says

A high school senior in Indiana was shot during a law enforcement vocational training session when one of the deputies conducting the training session “accidentally” fired his service weapon, rather than a “dummy gun,” reports say.

On Thursday morning, Deputy Tim DisPennett, a 19-year veteran of the Vermillion County Sheriff’s Office, was conducting a vocational law enforcement class at South Vermillion County High School in Clinton, Indiana, about 15 miles north of Terre Haute. During a demonstration, DisPennett reportedly fired his service revolver, and the bullet from his gun grazed a male student.

A cop so ignorant that he didn’t know the difference between an inert blue plastic gun and his service weapon?

If it wasn’t a dummy weapon then it must have been some sort of training weapon. There are a few types out there. The main component of all of them is that they are easily identified as a training weapon.

The training weapons systems that allow you to use your own weapon replace the slide and barrel, again to make sure that you don’t have an Alec, like this deputy did.

H/T to Pistoleer Birdog357

In Bruen Justice Thomas stated that the plain text of the second amendment as understood at the time of its ratification along with the history and tradition shall guide our understanding of what is protected by the second amendment.

The operative clause of the second amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This is a limitation on the federal government at the time of ratification. It meant that the federal government could not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. It did not constrain state governments from infringing as they wished.

Because of this many state Constitutions have a right to keep and bear arms in them. For example:

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
— Massachusetts Declaration of Rights — Article 17

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. SEC. 16. The military shall, in all cases, and at all times, be in strict subordination to the civil power.
— Constitution of the State of Connecticut

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
— N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 4

Not all states have an explicit right to keep and bear arms. Part of the reason is that in 1868 the 14th amendment was ratified.

Under the 14th amendment the US constitution and the rights enshrined within it also restrict States and other political subdivisions of the States.

The 13th amendment said that the federal government could not enslave or force involuntary servitude on anybody except as a punishment for a crime for which the person has been duly convicted.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The 13th amendment didn’t apply to the states, cities, towns, counties or villages. It only applied to the federal government. It was only with the ratification of the 14th that the 13th applied to lower political subdivisions.

As part of that the 1st through 12th amendments were also incorporated.

The Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments to the Constitution, protects certain rights belonging to individuals and states against infringement by the federal government. While some provisions of the Constitution expressly prohibit the states from taking certain actions,1 the Bill of Rights does not explicitly bind the states,2 and the Supreme Court in early cases declined to apply the Bill of Rights to the states directly.3 However, following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to impose on the states many of the Bill of Rights’ limitations, a doctrine sometimes called “incorporation” against the states through the Due Process Clause.
— Amdt14.S1.4.1 Overview of Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

So we can see that the second amendment was ratified in 1791 and incorporated in 1868 and thus can be applied to any law or regulation within the US.

But Thomas said “the plain text” of the second amendment. The text isn’t plain at all. It talks about militias and free states, surely that means the right to bear arms is related to the state or militia in some way.

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

The Supreme court has answered this question. They have stated what all of the words in the second amendment mean.

First, the second amendment has a prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” and an operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.

The supreme court has stated exactly what the operative clause is and has also stated that the prefatory clause doesn’t limit the operative clause.

So the question then becomes what does “The right of the People to keep and bear Arms” mean? Again the court has answered us.

The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

The supreme court has stated clearly that the right belongs to the individual. “The right of the people” is not limited by the prefatory clause nor is it restricted to by any other qualification. It is every individual.

So what is it that the people have a right to? Something to do with arms.

The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

Here the court again explicitly states that arms are weapons of any sort. Knives, swords, rocks, clubs and of course guns are all “Arms”. It also includes defensive equipment such as armour. So the second amendment not only guarantees the people the right to firearms, it also guarantees the people the right to body armor (and any other type of armor).

The only restriction in the Heller decision is that the people be able to “take into his hands” and that is not well defined.

The court also explicitly states that “Arms” are not limited to what was available in the 18th century.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

The court then addresses what it means to “keep arms”.

We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

The court, in their opinion, explicitly states that requirements on how the people keep their arms is unconstitutional. The struck down D.C.’s restrictions requiring trigger locks and other such “safe storage” infringements.

So what about “to bear arms”? What does that mean, again the court has answered.

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

Further the court says that to bear arms does not mean “in the military/militia”

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petition ers and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

What is the government enjoined from doing:

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

From this it is clear that every part of the second amendment has been analyzed and defined by the Supreme Court. The inferior courts of the United States don’t get to reinterpret what the words mean, they have been told what the words mean.

The above quotes are from the Heller opinion: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

This opinion was followed by the McDonald opinion. The problem was that immediately after Heller the people tried to exercise their rights and were thwarted by the States refusing to issue permission slips.

The States argued that Heller “…that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States…”

This is where the Fourteenth Amendment comes into play for the first time. In McDonald the court said: Yes! The second amendment applies to the states as well as all other political subdivisions!

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related actions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases—United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535— which were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.
— CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

The court has defined what the words mean, has said that it applies to the Federal, State and Local governments. Because of this the infringers moved to a different tactic. They finally acknowledged that the second amendment was an individual right and that their gun control laws were infringements but they claimed that because Heller allowed for some restrictions on the right, that the courts needed to find a balance between the right of the people and the needs of the governementgovernment.

This was often labeled “means-end”. The idea being that the larger the infringement the more tightly tailored the law had to be to the asserted government need. If it was a “small infringement”, say limiting the number of firearms a person could buy in a given period of time, the solution the government asserted could be broad. On the other hand if the infringement was greater, say limiting your right to have a gun within your home, then the solution the government asserted needed to be tightly tailored.

The problem with this was that any court that wanted a law to pass muster need only pick the right place on that scale to get the result the government wanted. They would define stringent laws such as a magazine ban or an assault weapon ban as being a small infringement so the government’s broad brush was allowed. If on the other hand the infringement encroached on the “core second amendment right” the courts would agree with the government’s assertion that the law was tightly tailored.

The actual argument in NYSR&PA v. Bruen isn’t really all that important. What was important was the court’s opinion.

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.
— NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Here the court states clearly that means-end is not acceptable. Only “…which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text as informed by history.”

This is the where the weasels start weaseling over words. What history? If you want history how about the century from 1911 when New York passed the Sullivan Act? That’s history. How about all of the gun control laws passed post 1865? That’s over 150 years of history.

Thomas addressed that.

…To do so, respondents appeal to a variety of historical sources from the late 1200s to the early 1900s. But when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635. The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; the Fourteenth in 1868. Historical evidence that long predates or post-dates either time may not illuminate the scope of the right. With these principles in mind, the Court concludes that respondents have failed to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New York’s proper-cause requirement. Pp. 24–62.
— Bruen

Here is where we run into the problem. The court’s opinion says “The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; the Fourteenth in 1868.” This puts both dates at the same level. Thomas then says that historical evidence that long predates or post-dates either time are not useful in finding analogise gun control laws.

We want the date of importance to be 1791 when the people voted and decided on ratifying the second amendment. They knew what it meant at that moment in time. We know have a damn good idea what it meant. We also know what gun control laws existed at that time. Almost none.

But in 19681868, just past the end of the Civil War, there were a lot of gun control laws being passed. These laws were almost always designed to be either a part of the “Black Code”, “Jim Crow”, or retaliation on the men that fought with the Confederacy.

There is clear indications that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was not about reinterpreting the bill of rights but instead on imposing the limits on the States.

Gun grabbers are desperate to get the courts to pull in laws from the late 1800s and early 1900s to allow them to infringe on the 2nd.

Finally, the court has stated that the second amendment does not grant the people any rights.

As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ….”
— D.C. v Heller

UPDATE: Corrected 1968 to 1868, removed space from block quote, removed word.

SCOTUSBlog is a good resource for people following supreme court cases. Even before cert. is granted.

Unfortunately that doesn’t mean that they always present good articles.

After researching and writing my previous article I found a link to this article:
Cherry-picked history and ideology-driven outcomes: Bruen’s originalist distortions

The author argues from a position of authority. His article is full of statements given as fact that are just opinion.

The majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen invokes the authority of history but presents a version of the past that is little more than an ideological fantasy, much of it invented by gun-rights advocates and their libertarian allies in the legal academy with the express purpose of bolstering litigation such as Bruen. Rather than applying a history, text, and tradition approach, it would be more accurate to characterize Justice Clarence Thomas’ decision as an illustration of the current Supreme Court’s new interpretive model: “Fiction, Fantasy, and Mythology.” Indeed, the distortion of the historical record, misreading of evidence, and dismissal of facts that don’t fit the gun-rights narrative favored by Thomas are genuinely breathtaking in scope. Thomas has taken law-office history to a new low, even for the Supreme Court, a body whose special brand of “law chambers history” has prompted multiple critiques and been a source of amusement for generations of scholars and court watchers.

Then we get to his supporting arguments.

There were a lot of gun control infringements passed after the civil war and Thomas just ignored those. They were at the time of the passing of the 14th amendment and should count just as much as when the second was adopted in 1791.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many of these infringers go to laws that were part of the racist Jim Crow laws to prove that their current infringements should be allowed to stand.

The six conservative justice on the U.S. Supreme Court have seemingly come to think of themselves as historians, able to excavate the original meaning of the Constitution from archival sources revealed to them in the briefs of petitioners and respondents. The result has been bad history and worse law, culminating in last term’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where the majority invalidated New York’s restrictions on carrying concealed handguns because it was deemed inconsistent with “this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

So we see it once again, the court’s decision being questioned because they aren’t experts in history. Same bit of noise we got out of an Mississippi District Judge a month ago.

The argument goes that the Supreme court isn’t qualified to do historical research. Even though the entire American Legal system is built on the concept of “Common Law”. Common law is laws that are applied the same (in common) across all courts. I.e. how a law is interpreted in the past is how it is going to be interpreted in the future.

We have only one court which is not bound by precedent, the Supreme Court. They are allowed to say “We got it wrong in the past.” We saw this with Dobbs case where they overturned Roe.

They looked at the Constitution, they looked at the understanding of abortion law at the time. They looked at all the amendments to the Constitution (which are included in the Constitution) and said “We can’t find anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate abortion. Thus it is a states issue.”

Justice Thomas made it clear that laws that infringe on the right to keep an bear arms must fit within the text, history and tradition of the second amendment at the time of its adoption, 1791.

He also mentioned in 1868 as well because this is when the 14th amendment was adopted which said that the federal Constitution extended into the states. It was there so that the former confederate states couldn’t pass slavery laws that re-enslaved blacks in violation of the 13th amendment.

It turns out, however, that historical similarity is in the eye of the beholder. Thomas thus dismissed the many 19th century gun control laws as non-analogous “outliers,”…

That’s right, notice that 19th Century means the 1800’s. Steven Lubet wants you to conflate the time at the beginning of the 19th century with the time at the end. In the early 1800’s there were no gun control laws to speak of. But in the 1870s, after the civil war there were a number of Jim Crow laws passed that infringed on the rights of blacks. Many of those laws disarming blacks.

Since the New York law was passed in 1911 was in keeping with the racist laws of the deep south they should be allowed to stand.

This is the problem with allowing the courts to downplay their own ability to do historical research and to actually bother to read our own laws. The words of the second amendment are very clear. They are easy to understand. It takes work to twist them into different meanings. The number of times people have misquoted the 2nd in order to prove it was a collective right is mind boggling.

In addition, there is a great deal of legal history where the supreme court has said explicitly what the words of the second mean.

The biggest clue to this is that everyone of these people that pass these infringements do so while saying it doesn’t infringe because.

It isn’t an infringement because this gun is to deadly “Is it an arm? Yes. Does this restriction infringe on my right to keep or bear it? Yes.” Then the law is unconstitutional.

Well there needs to be an exception because no right is unconditional!

The law says I can’t carry in Times Square. Is it keeping me from arming my self with an arm? Yes. Is it infringing on my right to bear that arm where I want to carry it? Yes. Then it is unconstitutional.

As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern put it, “modern technology has made guns vastly more powerful and deadly, and the exponential growth in population creates new challenges that were not present hundreds of years ago.”

Which is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how much the population has change or how the technology has changed. Shall not be infringed.

Judge Joseph Goodwin read Bruen correctly when he said “there are no laws in 1791 requiring serial numbers and the governments assertion that serial numbers help solve or stop crimes can’t be considered.”

Of course, there were no such laws. Serial numbers were unknown in 1791; they came into wide use only with the advent of mass production of firearms. “The first legal requirement for serial numbers did not appear until 1934,” and then only for machine guns; their removal was not criminalized until 1938. “Serial numbers were not broadly required for all firearms . . . until the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968,” 100 years after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Which is exactly the point. There were no laws at that time. The constitution says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If that text doesn’t cover forcing serial numbers on all firearms then you can’t make a law punishing a person for having a firearm with no serial numbers.

That Mississippi Judge said “[no judges are] experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791. Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication”. Do you racist much Judge?

The entire opinion piece is full of “But this law is good!” statements. Totally ignoring why that law is unconstitutional or just plain bad.

It might be a “good” thing to remove the right to posses firearms from convicted violent felons. It is “bad” to remove the right to possess firearms from people that have not been convicted, even if they have court orders or restraining orders issued against them. The people of this country are innocent until proven guilty. You don’t get to punish them for something they haven’t been convicted of doing. Would you take away a person’s right to vote just because a spiteful ex- got a restraining order against them?

The Supreme Court’s bad history