Frank wrote on Sep 20
th, 2024 at 1:04pm:
ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19
th, 2024 at 1:37pm:
Frank wrote on Sep 19
th, 2024 at 11:02am:
Do remember that R v W itself was an overturn of established, constitutionally valid practice of a century or more.
The basis of that overturn was the work of progressive lawyers of SCOTUS inventing a right for the federal legislature, overriding the states' legislatures.
The US replaced monarchy by one king with monarchy by 9 black robed , oracular lawyers interpreting the Constitution this way and that.
Overlawyered.
Can we walk back the changes to how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted by SCOTUS and have it only apply to a well-regulated militia like it was originally intended too then?
Totally irrelevant. No state can legislate to override the second amendment.
And it doesn't establish a well regulated militia. It says the right to bear arms is not to be infringed.
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.
When States joined the Union, they ratified the Constitution and accepted its supremacy clause:
Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I don’t wish to divert the thread, but your assertion was that the SCOTUS had altered its ruling and interpretation of the law regarding RvW. The states can then follow with whatever laws they like, as we're seeing with issues around IVF, Abortion etc.
SCOTUS has similarly revised its interpretation in relation to the Second Amendment.
Historically, the Court predominantly interpreted the Second Amendment as safeguarding the collective right of militias rather than individual rights, this was largely the case until 2008. The notion that it guarantees an individual right is, in fact, a relatively recent development.
The NRA followed a similar trajectory. Since its establishment in the late 19th century, it focused primarily on marksmanship and gun safety, rather than engaging in political advocacy. Over time, the NRA even supported several gun control measures, including the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.
As for SCOTUS, in United States v. Miller (1939), the Court upheld a law restricting certain firearms, determining that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to own such weapons unless there was a reasonable connection to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
The pivotal shift came with District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, independent of militia service, for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defence within the home.
Thus, the Court’s interpretation had indeed changed.
If the argument is to revert Roe v. Wade to its pre-existing interpretation, then by that same logic, we should consider doing the same with District of Columbia v. Heller.
Let us return to the original text, which pertained to the right of those serving in a well-regulated militia.
Obviously, this would require SCOTUS to make such a ruling, but if it's good enough for RvW, so it should be for the 2nd amendment.
Forum
Pages: 
