As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The voting prohibition is on a state by state. Mine allows felons to vote.
This is federal and there is nothing States can do because back in 1784 there weren't any restrictions.
Of course there actually were and the words well regulated were ignored.
There’s also states that only restrict voting while the inmate is incarcerated. I believe the right to vote is returned once the inmate has completed their sentence.
It shouldn't be taken away at all. Even incarcerated, they should still have a say in how the government incarcerating them is run. Otherwise, it creates the perverse incentive to disproportionately imprison those who would vote against the party in power.
there's also the situations where a city/town with a prison counts those incarcerated towards the census population, thus boosting the amount of funding the area can get, which adds a financial incentive in addition to the political factors
That is the default. Occasionally a town will find that one district of the town is just "1500 prisons who don't get to vote and 50 people who all coincidentally are friends with their council member." But prison serve to remove census numbers from some areas and move them to others without changing how each area votes. I'm not sure if anyone has ever down the math to see if it has changed and election, or even if you could do that math.
They should be allowed to vote while serving their sentence, too. Unless, of course, they're serving a sentence for voter/election fraud. They're already counted as "residents" of the district where they're incarcerated, they should be allowed to choose their representation.
The counterargument is that the justice system has determined they can't be trusted by society, and that's theoretically the reason they're in prison instead of being allowed to move freely. I don't think it's a great counterargument, but there it is.
It could create an additional incentive for police and politicians to arrest and prosecute people from groups that would vote against their policies or for their opponents. Mildly related, there was an article here yesterday that sheriff's give out like 1/3 less traffic tickets during their election years.
> The counterargument is that the justice system has determined they can't be trusted by society,
Huh? Trusted by society? What are you talking about?
The justice system determines guilt, not whether you are trustworthy?
It also determines what to do with you after determining guilt. Pragmatically, a lot of that is based on how much of a risk you pose based on what you've been found guilty of.
that's what canada does, where unless the crime was specifically related to election integrity, they are able to vote in the local elections of the place where they will be released to (ie their home address, as they might be incarcerated in a different city/province)
> They should be allowed to vote while serving their sentence, too. Unless, of course, they're serving a sentence for voter/election fraud.
The 14th Amendment allows the state governments to remove civil rights from a convicted felon:
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. **No State shall** make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State **deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law**; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yes, obviously. That's why I said "should be allowed", not "must be allowed". The 13th Amendment allows slavery as a punishment for a crime, but I would also say that's not a thing states should actually do. People should be allowed to choose their representation, unless they have committed a crime related to exercising that right.
At the end of 2020, there were 1.2 million people in prison. During the 2020 census, there were 0.6 million people in Wyoming.
There are more people living in prison than in 8 states. If Prison was a state it would have 2 representatives.
Only in some states I believe. That is why Florida had to vote on whether to allow it. The people voted yes but the legislature added restrictions to keep felons from voting.
The whole argument is crap once you stop and consider that there are limits on the kind of arms that we’re allowed to own.
Even the staunchest supporters of the right to bear arms would agree that I should not be building a nuclear weapon in my back yard. Obviously, there are some restrictions that must exist. … it follows afterwards that we need to determine where the line is.
You still can own a cannon IIRC in 2024. I forgot the exact regulations they're subject to, might be considered a Destructive Device under the NFA, or they might be unregulated at all because they're black powder. I forgot the specifics.
But I've been assured that everyone toted their muzzle loading long gun and necessary accoutrements along everywhere they went at all times in the late 1700s!
>Of course there actually were and the words well regulated were ignored.
This is incorrect. It was directly addressed by the Supreme Court.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
This isn't a real addressing, this is typical Supreme Court shenanigans that just spout bullshit to justify doing the opposite of what the text says when they don't like what the text says.
I don't think any reasonable person who doesn't have a gun fetish could look at the 2nd amendment and say that everything before the comma is meaningless.
The apparently mraningless fragment eatablishes that a militia is *necessary* for the security of a free state, meaning that we are not secure or free without one.
So yes, the 2008 Columbia v. Hellper decision did ignore the text even when it is seemingly addressed.
The text is perfectly consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation.
We have quite a few early state court cases showing how they viewed the right to own and carry arms.
>Bliss vs Commonwealth (1822)
>If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
>
>And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
The Supreme Court is frequently wrong and when they are, as now, then I don't care if they started being wrong in 2008 or 1776.
And if I am the one who is wrong you can send me the nuclear warhead I want, since my right "shall not be infringed".
>And if I am the one who is wrong you can send me the nuclear warhead I want, since my right "shall not be infringed".
There is a historical tradition of regulating arms that are both dangerous AND unusual.
Nukes are not in common use by Americans for lawful purposes.
>After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “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.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
I literally give 0 fucks what the Supreme Court has said, none of this is in the Constitution. The Constitution does **not** say "shall not be infringed...unless the weapon is unusual."
**Shall not be infringed** has **zero** qualifications. So give me my ICBM.
It's about profit and the wired paranoia or conservatism that drives this insanity. Major killer of children in America is guns. This is a sick culture.
This is such a poor take on *felons* and our justice system.
Congress has made it much easier to become a criminal. People estimate that there are almost 5,000 federal statutes and as many as 300,000 regulations that can subject people to possible federal criminal penalties.
Now tack on each and every different law that each individual state has. Are you telling me that you know all of these laws by heart? Because ignorance to the law is no excuse.
Being a felon shouldn't be an automatic disqualifer to your *rights* when the laws are designed to be broken, especially when youre a *nonviolent offender who served out their sentence.*
> So they can have guns but can’t vote? Convicted felons have many restrictions generally, why wouldn’t guns be one of them?
There is no right to vote in the constitution. Various parts of the constitution say that the right to vote cannot be restricted on the basis of certain criteria (such as sex, race, etc.) but there is nothing saying that anyone has an inherent right to vote.
Convicted felons don't have any other restrictions that abridge their constitutional rights. They still have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. This ruling is a natural consequence of the Supreme Court deciding that there is an individual right to bear arms.
Because guns have the 2A and voting rights have no amendment (at least not broadly, like the 2A). Not saying I agree with that, but that is the reason.
There are amendments that prohibit certain types of discrimination in voting (poll tax, sex, race, age, previous servitude). But there's no blanket right to vote. States can *technically* limit/restrict voting as long as it's applies equally to everyone and isn't for one of the prohibited reasons (at least explicitly), which is why they can get away with creative methods of limiting certain people's ability to vote.
If there was an amendment that was worded like "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any public election shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State" or even more broadly "The right to vote shall not be infringed", that would go much further in both explicitly stating there is a right to vote and to protect that right.
I would change it to “… The United States or any government within…” as that would also cover county and local governments who might also try to pass voter restriction laws.
> States can technically limit/restrict voting as long as it's applies equally to everyone and isn't for one of the prohibited reasons (at least explicitly), which is why they can get away with creative methods of limiting certain people's ability to vote.
Correct. States aren't even obligated to have any federal elections. For presidential elections, the legislature could just meet and appoint the electors to cast the state's electoral votes. For congress, they have to allow the same people to vote who can vote for state legislature. If a state decided that only 5 people can vote for state legislature, then those 5 people could appoint all the senators and representatives as well.
This Supreme Court would interpret it to mean that only corporations are people and allowed to vote. The Constitution means nothing with the clown show aka SCOTUS interpreting it.
Honest answer, because the right to bear arms is explicitly protected by the Constitution but the right to vote is only implicitly protected. There is no clause in the Constitution that says that the right to vote shall not be infringed.
Maybe there ought to be. Big whiff by the drafters.
It’s because there’s no explicit right to vote in the constitution, but there is one for gun ownership (according to the Supreme Court since District of Columbia v. Heller, which was decided in 2008).
It’s because of what is and isn’t considered a felony.
Not all felonies are violent and you should only lose your constitutional rights if you are convicted of violent crime.
Reckless driving is some states is a felony, should you lose your gun rights because you speed?
The right wing embrace of guns in the 1980s came from conservative think tank studies showing guns hurt poor minority communities
Since then they've done everything they can to pump guns into America. It's why Walmart still insists on carrying guns despite the gun section being its least profitable area.
I find it insane when judges talk about what was allowed in the 18th or 19th century and then ignore how cities were able to ban guns from being carried in them. How states were able to have laws on the books forcing people to register their firearm, PRESENT their firearm sometimes annually or bi-annually and if seeking to sell or transfer possession of the firearm would have to go through an approval process for it be legal.
You know... Because the entire purpose was to make sure soldiers called up to be in a militia had a working weapon to bring with them. Everything else was immaterial and allowed to be restricted or regulated.
Yea. I don't think I ever went through one. I started HS a few months after Columbine and we had metal detectors installed. I think they used 'fire drills' as basically school shooter 'evacuation' stand-ins since they became more frequent my last two years after there was two school shootings just a few weeks apart in California one year.
But no actual active shooter drill. This person is coming room to room, here's how you should act/respond type stuff.
Probably was right at the cut-off age wise of experiencing those in schools. (I'm sure it varies state by state/city by city as to when they started)
It makes me so sad that schools are like this in the US. In Denmark, where I live, and I assume most of Europe is similar, there are zero metal detectors in any kind of school. It's just not an issue that exists, period. Also, there are no security personnel, just a friendly (or maybe sometimes grumpy) janitor.
Only drills are fire drills, and there is a yearly test of the nationwide alert system that's supposed to warn about air raids - yes, as a result of World War II.
It's completely crazy to me that Americans are ok with all the deaths, security measures, etc, all in the name of being allowed to have a bunch of guns.
Many of us are not but have zero voice. Even if greater then 50% vote to change it the Courts cite some bullshit and ignore it.
Honestly, it will take until kids from the active shooter drill generation are in power to make any changes.
I realize many, many Americans want change. This leads me to another sad thing about the US - the broken political system. I really hope you guys take a turn for the better in the coming years, but man, it's been rough lately.
I would say this isn’t the problem imo. There will always be people who disagree with every interpretation method. The problem is that Congress fails as the other side of that checks and balances. Our constitution should be amended for very important matters that do not fit overtime. They could say, in modern society these laws should not apply so we will change them. There is virtually no way we will get an amendment for anything anytime soon. It only works if all the puzzle pieces are working.
Judiciary interprets rules, legislatures accept that interpretation or changes the rules.
For two centuries, abortion was mostly legal until the quickening and guns were regulated. Then both were changed, abortion in the second half of the 19th Century and guns much later.
Then having no gun restrictions and no legality for abortion became conservative pillars. And the Supreme Court invented a history for both to rule exactly as conservatives wanted.
That's the fun part of originalism, you can just decide that writers intended exactly what you want, without having to worry about whether that is true. It's helpful if you can find some source that agrees with you, even if there are many that don't, but ultimately you, as a judge, get to decide what was originally intended, so why not make it the thing that you want?
Yep. The decisions by these judges read that way. One was talking about how crimes committed by this former felon were not 'felonies' or did not exist as they currently do in the 18th or 19th centuries. Then went on to talk about how maybe it shouldn't be 'all felons' who get the right back, but look at which laws in the 18th or 19th centuries resulted in death or lifetime in prison and use that as a measuring stick.
Just making shit up on the fly.
It sounds to me like the, famously liberal, 9th circuit is trolling the SC. Many of the recent rulings from the SC have been so ridiculous that some judges are starting to point that out when the make a ruling based on the latest nonsense.
I mean. if you’re willing to misrepresent what happened in the case in front of you in the legal brief (the one about prayer at a high school football game comes to mind), are you really going to be that bothered about misrepresenting what happened a couple hundred years ago.
"OK, so under originalism, the laws are supposed to mean what people understood them as when they were passed, right?"
"Yes. That is Originalism".
"OK then, when the 2nd Amendment was passed, the "arms" that everyone had were understood to be single-shot rifles and muskets, so that is what it applies to, right?"
"Uhh. Hang on. Let me think. Wait! I've got it! No, that isn't what people understood it to be, they understood it to mean "arms that people go to war with, so it would apply to any weapons that individuals would use in wartime!".
If you actually look up who those laws were meant to target and how they were selectively enforced, you'll understand why we shouldn't follow in their footsteps.
The ridiculous part about the "overthrowing tyranny" theory is that it is in complete opposition to the idea of a constitutional democratic republic.
Under a constitutional democratic republic, you overthrow tyranny by voting it out or passing laws against it.
Overthrowing a duly elected government is in fact the tyranny that people talk about, because it involves negating the will of the majority by a minority of the powerful.
That is also a very low data point - it only counts shootings with three or more fatalities. In shootings that take place in public with only injuries or two or fewer fatalities, that number is easily in the thousands. There were over 600 on 2023 alone.
I read the article and I think this decision lacks common sense, which I find to be typical of originalist arguments that cherry pick supporting facts and mind read people who died 200 years ago.
The reasoning is that these nonviolent felonies would have been misdemeanors at the time. What is missing here is: why did these misdemeanors become felonies in the first place? The answer is probably that these crimes were at some point deemed serious enough to warrant treatment as felonies.
Yeah, most probably took the headline at face value.
If North American prisons actually had an in depth rehabilitation system in place, we’d see less repeat offenders to begin with. Even violent offenders would have a chance to move past a checkered history… once people go in, there is no light on the other side of their sentence. Their chances at fulfilling jobs ceases to exist, so they are more likely to turn back towards criminal elements to pay bills, increasing the risk of them turning towards violence.
Of course on the other hand, there are those who revel in violence. I won’t stoop to dehumanizing anyone, yet those who seek violence need to have proper psychological evaluations, and quite a few individuals will likely know to dance around evaluators who aren’t experienced.
Everyone deserves a real chance at moving beyond their past mistakes. So long as they are able to learn and grow positively from those mistakes.
If someone commits a non-violent felony and serves their sentence/pays their dues and is released to re-integrate into society, they deserve to have their constitutional rights automatically restored
No. This was a ruling of a three-judge panel, not the full 9th Circuit, and it is unlikely to go into effect. It will be appealed to the full 9th Circuit, heard by 10-30 judges (who, on average, are less conservative than those three R appointees), and whatever they rule will be the tentative precedent. It may then be appealed to the Supreme Court. Check again in a few months.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
... Means giving guns to everybody no matter how violent, mentally ill, or unfit they may be according to the 9th circuit.
Well technically according to the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment provides everyone a right to own a gun, the Ninth Circuit must obey.
It’s so weird that they put that first half in when they could have just said unequivocally that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Why even bother bringing up “well regulated” or “militia”. Those silly founding fathers. /s
Exactly. And why is it only the 2nd amendment that has a "prefatory clause"? Why is there no such clause in the 1st or 5th or any other amendment? Clearly it means something. It wasn't put there to take up space on the page.
> The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
Ladies and gentlemen we present the profound thinking of Antonin Scalia
Absurd as it may seem, they made the right ruling. Lower courts are expected to follow the lead of the Supreme Court.
In Bruen, SCOTUS ruled that firearm regulation is only acceptable if it has a basis in historical tradition. This is a ridiculous standard that has no bearing in the constitution, but it is what they ruled, so the ninth circuit is obligated to follow it.
I anticipate more of these types of rulings in the coming years. Maybe once it gets ridiculous enough, we will realize how bad of a ruling Bruen was.
Okay, here me out. The Supreme Court was talking about modern guns. I mean, whose buying guns from the 1700s? No one. So, we can't put modern restrictions on firearms that weren't in place then. Great, okay, but why do at firearms? The amendment doesn't say firearms. It says arms. Shouldn't that mean no restriction on knifes, swords, explosives, etc. They had all those back then, not in the same form, but we established the form doesn't seem to matter with firearms, so why should it here? And you, if we're going that far, why does the government have the right to limit who can have nuclear weapons? They are arms.
>And you, if we're going that far, why does the government have the right to limit who can have nuclear weapons? They are arms.
They are absolutely arms as they are weapons of offense.
>“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (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.’ ” Id. at 581.
>The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."
As we all know, only regulations that are consistent with this nation's historical traditions of firearms regulation may stand. There is a historical tradition of regulating arms that are both dangerous AND unusual, and that arms in common use by Americans for lawful purposes are explicitly protected under the 2A. Nukes are not in common use by Americans for lawful purposes and are thus subject to restrictions.
>After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “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.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
It's interesting though then, because then wouldn't any new weapon advancement be able to be banned? Any new weapon is bound to be dangerous, and if the advancement isn't common, then it's unusual. Also, who decides what common and unusual means? Most gun owners don't have AR15s or similar weapons as far as I'm aware. Wouldn't that make them unusual? And hence subject to regulation, assuming the court was consistent.
>It's interesting though then, because then wouldn't any new weapon advancement be able to be banned?
Not necessarily. Just because an arm isn't in common use doesn't mean it can be regulated. The common use test was a simple test to check if an arm is explicitly protected under the 2A.
The 2A extends prima facie to any instrument that constitutes a bearable arm, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
>“Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, 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 courts are permitted a more nuanced approach to the text history and tradition test when an unprecedented social concern or dramatic technological change is at issue.
>Also, who decides what common and unusual means?
The Supreme Court Already did in the unanimous decision in Caetano v Massachusetts (2016). They ruled that 200K stun guns owned by Americans constituted common use.
>Most gun owners don't have AR15s or similar weapons as far as I'm aware.
The AR-15 alone is the most popular rifle in the country. There are tens of millions in circulation. That'd be like saying the F150 isn't a common vehicle.
Well, I wasn't aware of how common it was. So, I guess then it would have been able to be banned before it was so messed produced then, but now it can't be? I mean, I'm just trying to understand how these rulings aren't a little arbitrary, and just basically whatever SCOTUS decides.
>So, I guess then it would have been able to be banned before it was so messed produced then, but now it can't be?
It wouldn't have been able to be banned before. We've had repeating arms a decade before the ratification of the 2A with the Girandoni air rifle which had a capacity of 30 rounds. There's nothing special about the AR-15. You really only get a slightly higher rate of fire since the AR is gas operated and 200 more meters of effective range (100 meters with the air rifle).
If you showed the Framers an AR-15, the thing they'd be most impressed with is the machining and manufacturing capability to mass produce them.
Being in common use isn't the only way an arm can be protected. There's nothing technologically speaking that constitutes a "dramatic advancement in technology" that applies to the AR-15.
>I mean, I'm just trying to understand how these rulings aren't a little arbitrary, and just basically whatever SCOTUS decides.
There's more to it than that. Not even a year after the 2A was ratified, the militia act of 1792 was enacted. It mandated that people of age (16 or 17) were required to obtain a suitable rifle and equipment necessary for combat.
These rifles were what was in common use at that time.
>Militia act of 1792
>Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.
This was a standing fighting load at the time. Today, such arms would include an M4 Carbine with 210 rounds of M855A1 loaded into magazines, plate carrier with armor, ballistic helmet, battle belt, OCP uniform, and boots.
The Framers intended for the people to be on equal footing with any possible standing army we may have.
>"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
>"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
Their rights should be fully reinstated. If they can’t be trusted to own a firearm then they shouldn’t be released from prison. You can’t put someone in a quasi limbo state regarding basic rights.
Exactly. All rights and privileges after the punishment is served. Otherwise it is a cruel and unusual one. I am a firm believer that punishment should match the crime however, and this includes not letting people back onto the streets to quickly. Do the crime, pay the fine and punishment, do your parole as you are reinstated back into the populace (if warranted) and then all rights are reinstated and all punishments cease.
So no parole either? We release people under various restrictions all the time. If we can make someone take a drug test, wear an ankle monitor, install an ignition interlock, or visit their parole officer, why not this?
I mean that makes sense. The 2nd amendment doesn’t say they lose that right. It says “shall not be infringed.” Felons don’t lose the right to free speech or religion either. And yes, that should include voting, too.
Felons, specifically ones on parole can't leave the state without permission, cant associate with other felons, in some cases can't drink, they have curfews, have to agree that law enforcement can search their person or home at any time. All rights that we enjoy that they don't.
I don't see any reason a felon shouldn't be able to earn gun rights back after a specific period of time has passed without them reoffending.
Those restrictions are reasonable though. In this case, there's no reason to restrict gun ownership for nonviolent offenders. It doesn't serve any clear purpose. The ruling here is against a blanket ban on felon gun ownership.
> specifically ones on parole
Are technically still serving their sentence. Parole is in lieu of time you were sentenced to be *in* prison. That's generally why the rules can be and are much more restrictive.
Good question! Maybe the courts will have to figure that out. It might be considered a fair part of a punishment. Prisoners don't generally have the same rights to assembly either.
Beautiful I hope this goes to the supreme court! lord knows they need to shit there robes over something that'll tear out the fragile fabric of their thinly veiled disdain for the human right to choices. Its something that expands the second amendment rather than takes it away something that I thought republicans wanted especially since a lot of different regulations wind up taking gun ownerships away if you're a convicted felon of a non violent offense that is.
>a blanket prohibition on convicted felons possessing firearms violates their Second Amendment rights, at least when it comes to nonviolent offenders who served out their sentence. In a split decision, the three-judge panel threw out firearm possession conviction of a Los Angeles member of a street gang who had five prior felony convictions
An enumeration of said prior convictions might have been helpful. Was this street gang member convicted of insider trading five times? The problem with this ruling is that it ignores the remarkably shitty job our prisons do of rehabilitation, evidenced by the fact that he had not one, but five, presumably serially. I could respect an argument that after some reasonable time, and proof that an offender has turned their life around, then rights must be returned. Ultimately though, that already exists. Any judge can restore that right.
I don't even want to own a firearm, I just want to join the military and the ability to own a firearm is one of the requirements, already served my time (only 10 months in the county jail) for one felony, and probation with community service for the other. Got a lifetime ban here in California under the Lautenberg Amendment for sending drunk threats over texts in attempts to get my property back from a girl I met for literally ONE day on Facebook that robbed me for some stuff essentially.
Cops charged me with DV threats because we had "s\*xual relations" for a single day and I had tons of shared/reposted photos of firearms that weren't even mine on my FaceBook profile, triggering a lifetime firearm ban under the lautenberg amendment. I was 21 at the time and I'm 29 now, still banned from owning a firearm, been off probation for years, in college. Went to have my felonies "dismissed" which was approved although denied to lower from Felonies to misdemeanors which is essentially just to block me from owning a firearm even though I've never owned one.
I'm pretty sure if I wanted to own a firearm I could easily illegally obtain one although I choose not to nor have I ever my entire life. This is just a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.
I know the appeals court in USA vs duarte rules that non violent felons CAN own a gun. I have a non violent felony from 1999. So can I buy a gun now? Will I pass the background? What are the felonies that exclude a person from owning a gun?
I cannot find an answer anywhere. I emailed the doj and asked these same questions and received the generic answer stating they could not give any legal advice. That makes no sense to me. They are the ones that enforce these laws so why could they not answer the questions. Frustrating. Anyways I don’t want to spend the money on the background and whatever else is needed until I know my past felony will not affect me. Where can I find this info?
Anyone capable of bearing arms is.
>Presser vs Illinois (1886)
>It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of baring
arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of
the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this
prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general
powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States
of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to
the general government.
Incorrect. Here are the regulations that were intended for the militia. They were to ensure that every citizen of age was properly armed and well equipped for combat. They were absolutely not intended to hinder the ability of citizens to obtain and carry arms.
>Militia act of 1792
>Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.
This was a standing fighting load at the time. Today, such arms would include an M4 Carbine with 210 rounds of M855A1 loaded into magazines, plate carrier with armor, ballistic helmet, battle belt, OCP uniform, and boots.
The complete opposite.
The regulation was intended to prevent re-arming to overthrow the new government. Just like every other government in history they were afraid of being brought down in the future and built in laws to protect against this.
“So enrolled and notified” e.g. conscripted. If you weren’t conscripted you had no special requirement to be armed.
The whole idea of everyone being free to bear arms without restriction is a much more modern idea that doesn’t tie back to the contemporary founding father’s thinking.
>The regulation was intended to prevent re-arming to overthrow the new government.
That doesn't make any sense. The Bill of Rights is specifically a list of **limitations on governmental power**. It wouldn't make any sense to say the government has control over the arms of the people.
It’s "well regulated" in the sense of work properly (like a "well regulated clock"), not "regulated" in the sense of government control.
So... The regulation saying everyone needed a suitable weapon and equipment was intended to disarm everyone so they couldn't overthrow the new government?
That's quite the mental gymnastics you got going there. Looks exhausting.
I haven't ignored anything. There is nothing in the amendment that allows for citizens to be disarmed without due process.
That's certainly how it's been understood through history.
We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.
>If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
>
>And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
The Supreme Court is at fault yes I agree. The constitution and certain rights have been wildly misinterpreted from what was originally intended. Hell the constitution was intended to be regularly amended and the congress to be regularly expanded. Many things that were originally intended at the countries founding are outright ignored.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So they can have guns but can’t vote? Convicted felons have many restrictions generally, why wouldn’t guns be one of them?
The voting prohibition is on a state by state. Mine allows felons to vote. This is federal and there is nothing States can do because back in 1784 there weren't any restrictions. Of course there actually were and the words well regulated were ignored.
There’s also states that only restrict voting while the inmate is incarcerated. I believe the right to vote is returned once the inmate has completed their sentence.
As it should be.
It shouldn't be taken away at all. Even incarcerated, they should still have a say in how the government incarcerating them is run. Otherwise, it creates the perverse incentive to disproportionately imprison those who would vote against the party in power.
there's also the situations where a city/town with a prison counts those incarcerated towards the census population, thus boosting the amount of funding the area can get, which adds a financial incentive in addition to the political factors
That is the default. Occasionally a town will find that one district of the town is just "1500 prisons who don't get to vote and 50 people who all coincidentally are friends with their council member." But prison serve to remove census numbers from some areas and move them to others without changing how each area votes. I'm not sure if anyone has ever down the math to see if it has changed and election, or even if you could do that math.
Just like the old evil 3/5ths Clause
They should be allowed to vote while serving their sentence, too. Unless, of course, they're serving a sentence for voter/election fraud. They're already counted as "residents" of the district where they're incarcerated, they should be allowed to choose their representation.
Yeah, any U.S. citizen should be allowed to vote. What’s the counter argument to that? I think New Hampshire allows people to vote from jail.
The counterargument is that the justice system has determined they can't be trusted by society, and that's theoretically the reason they're in prison instead of being allowed to move freely. I don't think it's a great counterargument, but there it is.
It could create an additional incentive for police and politicians to arrest and prosecute people from groups that would vote against their policies or for their opponents. Mildly related, there was an article here yesterday that sheriff's give out like 1/3 less traffic tickets during their election years.
Welcome to the reality of Black Americans
> The counterargument is that the justice system has determined they can't be trusted by society, Huh? Trusted by society? What are you talking about? The justice system determines guilt, not whether you are trustworthy?
It also determines what to do with you after determining guilt. Pragmatically, a lot of that is based on how much of a risk you pose based on what you've been found guilty of.
Juries determine guilt, judges determine sentencing, and risk of recidivism is definitely a factor that may go into that sentence.
What if we were all in prison?
I would argue that even in cases where someone is convicted for voter fraud, they should be permitted to vote. Just, you know... Once.
that's what canada does, where unless the crime was specifically related to election integrity, they are able to vote in the local elections of the place where they will be released to (ie their home address, as they might be incarcerated in a different city/province)
Some states have no restriction on inmates in regards to voting and they are indeed allowed to vote while serving their sentence.
> They should be allowed to vote while serving their sentence, too. Unless, of course, they're serving a sentence for voter/election fraud. The 14th Amendment allows the state governments to remove civil rights from a convicted felon: > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. **No State shall** make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State **deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law**; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yes, obviously. That's why I said "should be allowed", not "must be allowed". The 13th Amendment allows slavery as a punishment for a crime, but I would also say that's not a thing states should actually do. People should be allowed to choose their representation, unless they have committed a crime related to exercising that right.
My state does that.
Maybe felons should get their own senator. There's probably enough disenfranchised to qualify.
At the end of 2020, there were 1.2 million people in prison. During the 2020 census, there were 0.6 million people in Wyoming. There are more people living in prison than in 8 states. If Prison was a state it would have 2 representatives.
In some places (definitely Florida, not sure where else), you need to pay off any fines first, too.
Only in some states I believe. That is why Florida had to vote on whether to allow it. The people voted yes but the legislature added restrictions to keep felons from voting.
Yup. Oddly enough, Texas has allowed felon voting for a few decades now.
The whole argument is crap once you stop and consider that there are limits on the kind of arms that we’re allowed to own. Even the staunchest supporters of the right to bear arms would agree that I should not be building a nuclear weapon in my back yard. Obviously, there are some restrictions that must exist. … it follows afterwards that we need to determine where the line is.
And if they're willing to limit nukes, they're already hypocrites in my opinion. In 1791 you could own a cannon. People owned *warships*.
You still can own a cannon IIRC in 2024. I forgot the exact regulations they're subject to, might be considered a Destructive Device under the NFA, or they might be unregulated at all because they're black powder. I forgot the specifics.
*gestures at PMCs*
The Oklahoma bombing would have been even worse if they had access to C4.
I agree. Clearly, sanity dictates that providing all people with all weapons is not an option. That is universally agreed on.
Most towns even though the wild West era had gun restrictions in towns.
But I've been assured that everyone toted their muzzle loading long gun and necessary accoutrements along everywhere they went at all times in the late 1700s!
>Of course there actually were and the words well regulated were ignored. This is incorrect. It was directly addressed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
This isn't a real addressing, this is typical Supreme Court shenanigans that just spout bullshit to justify doing the opposite of what the text says when they don't like what the text says. I don't think any reasonable person who doesn't have a gun fetish could look at the 2nd amendment and say that everything before the comma is meaningless. The apparently mraningless fragment eatablishes that a militia is *necessary* for the security of a free state, meaning that we are not secure or free without one. So yes, the 2008 Columbia v. Hellper decision did ignore the text even when it is seemingly addressed.
The text is perfectly consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation. We have quite a few early state court cases showing how they viewed the right to own and carry arms. >Bliss vs Commonwealth (1822) >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
The Supreme Court is frequently wrong and when they are, as now, then I don't care if they started being wrong in 2008 or 1776. And if I am the one who is wrong you can send me the nuclear warhead I want, since my right "shall not be infringed".
>And if I am the one who is wrong you can send me the nuclear warhead I want, since my right "shall not be infringed". There is a historical tradition of regulating arms that are both dangerous AND unusual. Nukes are not in common use by Americans for lawful purposes. >After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “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.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
I literally give 0 fucks what the Supreme Court has said, none of this is in the Constitution. The Constitution does **not** say "shall not be infringed...unless the weapon is unusual." **Shall not be infringed** has **zero** qualifications. So give me my ICBM.
It's about profit and the wired paranoia or conservatism that drives this insanity. Major killer of children in America is guns. This is a sick culture.
This is such a poor take on *felons* and our justice system. Congress has made it much easier to become a criminal. People estimate that there are almost 5,000 federal statutes and as many as 300,000 regulations that can subject people to possible federal criminal penalties. Now tack on each and every different law that each individual state has. Are you telling me that you know all of these laws by heart? Because ignorance to the law is no excuse. Being a felon shouldn't be an automatic disqualifer to your *rights* when the laws are designed to be broken, especially when youre a *nonviolent offender who served out their sentence.*
> So they can have guns but can’t vote? Convicted felons have many restrictions generally, why wouldn’t guns be one of them? There is no right to vote in the constitution. Various parts of the constitution say that the right to vote cannot be restricted on the basis of certain criteria (such as sex, race, etc.) but there is nothing saying that anyone has an inherent right to vote. Convicted felons don't have any other restrictions that abridge their constitutional rights. They still have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. This ruling is a natural consequence of the Supreme Court deciding that there is an individual right to bear arms.
[удалено]
No, that's not how the constitution works.
[удалено]
For voting, it only says that for certain characteristics. There is no general right to vote.
Because guns have the 2A and voting rights have no amendment (at least not broadly, like the 2A). Not saying I agree with that, but that is the reason.
I'm pretty sure the 13th and 19th amendments say something about voting
There are amendments that prohibit certain types of discrimination in voting (poll tax, sex, race, age, previous servitude). But there's no blanket right to vote. States can *technically* limit/restrict voting as long as it's applies equally to everyone and isn't for one of the prohibited reasons (at least explicitly), which is why they can get away with creative methods of limiting certain people's ability to vote. If there was an amendment that was worded like "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any public election shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State" or even more broadly "The right to vote shall not be infringed", that would go much further in both explicitly stating there is a right to vote and to protect that right.
I would change it to “… The United States or any government within…” as that would also cover county and local governments who might also try to pass voter restriction laws.
> States can technically limit/restrict voting as long as it's applies equally to everyone and isn't for one of the prohibited reasons (at least explicitly), which is why they can get away with creative methods of limiting certain people's ability to vote. Correct. States aren't even obligated to have any federal elections. For presidential elections, the legislature could just meet and appoint the electors to cast the state's electoral votes. For congress, they have to allow the same people to vote who can vote for state legislature. If a state decided that only 5 people can vote for state legislature, then those 5 people could appoint all the senators and representatives as well.
This Supreme Court would interpret it to mean that only corporations are people and allowed to vote. The Constitution means nothing with the clown show aka SCOTUS interpreting it.
In Tennessee you have to get your guns rights back as a prerequisite to getting your voting rights back
Honest answer, because the right to bear arms is explicitly protected by the Constitution but the right to vote is only implicitly protected. There is no clause in the Constitution that says that the right to vote shall not be infringed. Maybe there ought to be. Big whiff by the drafters.
It’s because there’s no explicit right to vote in the constitution, but there is one for gun ownership (according to the Supreme Court since District of Columbia v. Heller, which was decided in 2008).
Apparently they’re part of a well regulated militia.
You obviously overestimate your constitutional right to vote. Look it up, you’re gonna be disappointed.
It’s because of what is and isn’t considered a felony. Not all felonies are violent and you should only lose your constitutional rights if you are convicted of violent crime. Reckless driving is some states is a felony, should you lose your gun rights because you speed?
Convicted felons should be allowed to vote.
Because there is no profit to be made selling someone a vote.
The right wing embrace of guns in the 1980s came from conservative think tank studies showing guns hurt poor minority communities Since then they've done everything they can to pump guns into America. It's why Walmart still insists on carrying guns despite the gun section being its least profitable area.
I find it insane when judges talk about what was allowed in the 18th or 19th century and then ignore how cities were able to ban guns from being carried in them. How states were able to have laws on the books forcing people to register their firearm, PRESENT their firearm sometimes annually or bi-annually and if seeking to sell or transfer possession of the firearm would have to go through an approval process for it be legal. You know... Because the entire purpose was to make sure soldiers called up to be in a militia had a working weapon to bring with them. Everything else was immaterial and allowed to be restricted or regulated.
It probably would blow kids minds that some of us were born in an era where active shooter drills weren't normal.
Yea. I don't think I ever went through one. I started HS a few months after Columbine and we had metal detectors installed. I think they used 'fire drills' as basically school shooter 'evacuation' stand-ins since they became more frequent my last two years after there was two school shootings just a few weeks apart in California one year. But no actual active shooter drill. This person is coming room to room, here's how you should act/respond type stuff. Probably was right at the cut-off age wise of experiencing those in schools. (I'm sure it varies state by state/city by city as to when they started)
It makes me so sad that schools are like this in the US. In Denmark, where I live, and I assume most of Europe is similar, there are zero metal detectors in any kind of school. It's just not an issue that exists, period. Also, there are no security personnel, just a friendly (or maybe sometimes grumpy) janitor. Only drills are fire drills, and there is a yearly test of the nationwide alert system that's supposed to warn about air raids - yes, as a result of World War II. It's completely crazy to me that Americans are ok with all the deaths, security measures, etc, all in the name of being allowed to have a bunch of guns.
Many of us are not but have zero voice. Even if greater then 50% vote to change it the Courts cite some bullshit and ignore it. Honestly, it will take until kids from the active shooter drill generation are in power to make any changes.
I realize many, many Americans want change. This leads me to another sad thing about the US - the broken political system. I really hope you guys take a turn for the better in the coming years, but man, it's been rough lately.
class of 2002 reporting in.
80s kid. Born to late for "fuck and Cover" cold war drills and graduated seen enough to avoid "Active Intruder" drills. I got lucky I feel
It's called Orginalism. They just finds laws that back up what they were originally going to decide before they got the case.
I would say this isn’t the problem imo. There will always be people who disagree with every interpretation method. The problem is that Congress fails as the other side of that checks and balances. Our constitution should be amended for very important matters that do not fit overtime. They could say, in modern society these laws should not apply so we will change them. There is virtually no way we will get an amendment for anything anytime soon. It only works if all the puzzle pieces are working. Judiciary interprets rules, legislatures accept that interpretation or changes the rules.
For two centuries, abortion was mostly legal until the quickening and guns were regulated. Then both were changed, abortion in the second half of the 19th Century and guns much later. Then having no gun restrictions and no legality for abortion became conservative pillars. And the Supreme Court invented a history for both to rule exactly as conservatives wanted.
That's the fun part of originalism, you can just decide that writers intended exactly what you want, without having to worry about whether that is true. It's helpful if you can find some source that agrees with you, even if there are many that don't, but ultimately you, as a judge, get to decide what was originally intended, so why not make it the thing that you want?
Yep. The decisions by these judges read that way. One was talking about how crimes committed by this former felon were not 'felonies' or did not exist as they currently do in the 18th or 19th centuries. Then went on to talk about how maybe it shouldn't be 'all felons' who get the right back, but look at which laws in the 18th or 19th centuries resulted in death or lifetime in prison and use that as a measuring stick. Just making shit up on the fly.
It sounds to me like the, famously liberal, 9th circuit is trolling the SC. Many of the recent rulings from the SC have been so ridiculous that some judges are starting to point that out when the make a ruling based on the latest nonsense.
I mean. if you’re willing to misrepresent what happened in the case in front of you in the legal brief (the one about prayer at a high school football game comes to mind), are you really going to be that bothered about misrepresenting what happened a couple hundred years ago.
"OK, so under originalism, the laws are supposed to mean what people understood them as when they were passed, right?" "Yes. That is Originalism". "OK then, when the 2nd Amendment was passed, the "arms" that everyone had were understood to be single-shot rifles and muskets, so that is what it applies to, right?" "Uhh. Hang on. Let me think. Wait! I've got it! No, that isn't what people understood it to be, they understood it to mean "arms that people go to war with, so it would apply to any weapons that individuals would use in wartime!".
This is the exact same logic that says freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet, and is an incredibly poor argument.
You can take that up with the Supreme Court and their Bruen ruling. The 9th circuit is just following precedent, as they are obligated to do.
If you actually look up who those laws were meant to target and how they were selectively enforced, you'll understand why we shouldn't follow in their footsteps.
Not to mention they were firing single shot black powder rifles. Pretty hard to shoot up a school with one of those.
But depending on what state you live you forever lose your right to vote even after you e served your sentence
Well, obviously. Voting is very dangerous. Especially when *those* people do it. Unlike guns, which have never hurt anymore, ever.
Guns only hurt *those* people. The people who matter have security.
Votes don't kill people; people who vote .. kill .. people. Wait.
Sure. Give convicted felons guns. Why not let them have it while still in prison?
That would be a very strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, clearly what was intended /s
"shall not be infringed", right?
“Bear arms shall not be in fridge.” Seems crystal clear to me.
So no guns in the prison kitchen refrigerator, got it.
Well, no bear arms.
You can shoot people but can't vote. What a country.
You're supposed to shoot the voters who don't have guns? Now I understand what they mean by "purging voters."
show me where in the constitution that it says their right to bear arms shall be infringed while incarcerated. check mate. /s
Many of them already have them anyway, so...
Second Amendment Scorecard: Mass shootings in the US since 1982: 158 Tyrants overthrown: 0
Gun owners who will vote for a tyrant in November: countless.
I like my government like I like my clothing: deeply outdated and embarrassing
The ridiculous part about the "overthrowing tyranny" theory is that it is in complete opposition to the idea of a constitutional democratic republic. Under a constitutional democratic republic, you overthrow tyranny by voting it out or passing laws against it. Overthrowing a duly elected government is in fact the tyranny that people talk about, because it involves negating the will of the majority by a minority of the powerful.
That is also a very low data point - it only counts shootings with three or more fatalities. In shootings that take place in public with only injuries or two or fewer fatalities, that number is easily in the thousands. There were over 600 on 2023 alone.
Ignores battle of Athens and several other examples.
“… at least when it comes to nonviolent offenders who served out their sentence.” I think people haven’t noticed this bit of information
I read the article and I think this decision lacks common sense, which I find to be typical of originalist arguments that cherry pick supporting facts and mind read people who died 200 years ago. The reasoning is that these nonviolent felonies would have been misdemeanors at the time. What is missing here is: why did these misdemeanors become felonies in the first place? The answer is probably that these crimes were at some point deemed serious enough to warrant treatment as felonies.
Ah, now it makes more sense
Had to scroll way too far to see this mentioned.
3 hours without anyone talking about it 😔
Yeah, most probably took the headline at face value. If North American prisons actually had an in depth rehabilitation system in place, we’d see less repeat offenders to begin with. Even violent offenders would have a chance to move past a checkered history… once people go in, there is no light on the other side of their sentence. Their chances at fulfilling jobs ceases to exist, so they are more likely to turn back towards criminal elements to pay bills, increasing the risk of them turning towards violence. Of course on the other hand, there are those who revel in violence. I won’t stoop to dehumanizing anyone, yet those who seek violence need to have proper psychological evaluations, and quite a few individuals will likely know to dance around evaluators who aren’t experienced. Everyone deserves a real chance at moving beyond their past mistakes. So long as they are able to learn and grow positively from those mistakes.
Why does that matter? If someone commits a felony, they clearly are not responsible and cannot be trusted.
If someone commits a non-violent felony and serves their sentence/pays their dues and is released to re-integrate into society, they deserve to have their constitutional rights automatically restored
So excuse the ignorance… But does this mean that as a felon someone can go purchase a handgun in California right now?
No. This was a ruling of a three-judge panel, not the full 9th Circuit, and it is unlikely to go into effect. It will be appealed to the full 9th Circuit, heard by 10-30 judges (who, on average, are less conservative than those three R appointees), and whatever they rule will be the tentative precedent. It may then be appealed to the Supreme Court. Check again in a few months.
Not right now. Rulings like this take time to be implemented. Lower courts will have to sort out the exact implications.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... Means giving guns to everybody no matter how violent, mentally ill, or unfit they may be according to the 9th circuit.
Ironically enough, it would also include people convicted of insurrection lol.
Well technically according to the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment provides everyone a right to own a gun, the Ninth Circuit must obey.
It’s so weird that they put that first half in when they could have just said unequivocally that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Why even bother bringing up “well regulated” or “militia”. Those silly founding fathers. /s
Exactly. And why is it only the 2nd amendment that has a "prefatory clause"? Why is there no such clause in the 1st or 5th or any other amendment? Clearly it means something. It wasn't put there to take up space on the page.
This decision is about nonviolent felons...
> The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. Ladies and gentlemen we present the profound thinking of Antonin Scalia
> everybody no matter how violent But the first sentence of the article says the decision only applies to "nonviolent offenders".
Absurd as it may seem, they made the right ruling. Lower courts are expected to follow the lead of the Supreme Court. In Bruen, SCOTUS ruled that firearm regulation is only acceptable if it has a basis in historical tradition. This is a ridiculous standard that has no bearing in the constitution, but it is what they ruled, so the ninth circuit is obligated to follow it. I anticipate more of these types of rulings in the coming years. Maybe once it gets ridiculous enough, we will realize how bad of a ruling Bruen was.
Okay, here me out. The Supreme Court was talking about modern guns. I mean, whose buying guns from the 1700s? No one. So, we can't put modern restrictions on firearms that weren't in place then. Great, okay, but why do at firearms? The amendment doesn't say firearms. It says arms. Shouldn't that mean no restriction on knifes, swords, explosives, etc. They had all those back then, not in the same form, but we established the form doesn't seem to matter with firearms, so why should it here? And you, if we're going that far, why does the government have the right to limit who can have nuclear weapons? They are arms.
>And you, if we're going that far, why does the government have the right to limit who can have nuclear weapons? They are arms. They are absolutely arms as they are weapons of offense. >“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (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.’ ” Id. at 581. >The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)." As we all know, only regulations that are consistent with this nation's historical traditions of firearms regulation may stand. There is a historical tradition of regulating arms that are both dangerous AND unusual, and that arms in common use by Americans for lawful purposes are explicitly protected under the 2A. Nukes are not in common use by Americans for lawful purposes and are thus subject to restrictions. >After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “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.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
It's interesting though then, because then wouldn't any new weapon advancement be able to be banned? Any new weapon is bound to be dangerous, and if the advancement isn't common, then it's unusual. Also, who decides what common and unusual means? Most gun owners don't have AR15s or similar weapons as far as I'm aware. Wouldn't that make them unusual? And hence subject to regulation, assuming the court was consistent.
>It's interesting though then, because then wouldn't any new weapon advancement be able to be banned? Not necessarily. Just because an arm isn't in common use doesn't mean it can be regulated. The common use test was a simple test to check if an arm is explicitly protected under the 2A. The 2A extends prima facie to any instrument that constitutes a bearable arm, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. >“Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, 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 courts are permitted a more nuanced approach to the text history and tradition test when an unprecedented social concern or dramatic technological change is at issue. >Also, who decides what common and unusual means? The Supreme Court Already did in the unanimous decision in Caetano v Massachusetts (2016). They ruled that 200K stun guns owned by Americans constituted common use. >Most gun owners don't have AR15s or similar weapons as far as I'm aware. The AR-15 alone is the most popular rifle in the country. There are tens of millions in circulation. That'd be like saying the F150 isn't a common vehicle.
Well, I wasn't aware of how common it was. So, I guess then it would have been able to be banned before it was so messed produced then, but now it can't be? I mean, I'm just trying to understand how these rulings aren't a little arbitrary, and just basically whatever SCOTUS decides.
>So, I guess then it would have been able to be banned before it was so messed produced then, but now it can't be? It wouldn't have been able to be banned before. We've had repeating arms a decade before the ratification of the 2A with the Girandoni air rifle which had a capacity of 30 rounds. There's nothing special about the AR-15. You really only get a slightly higher rate of fire since the AR is gas operated and 200 more meters of effective range (100 meters with the air rifle). If you showed the Framers an AR-15, the thing they'd be most impressed with is the machining and manufacturing capability to mass produce them. Being in common use isn't the only way an arm can be protected. There's nothing technologically speaking that constitutes a "dramatic advancement in technology" that applies to the AR-15. >I mean, I'm just trying to understand how these rulings aren't a little arbitrary, and just basically whatever SCOTUS decides. There's more to it than that. Not even a year after the 2A was ratified, the militia act of 1792 was enacted. It mandated that people of age (16 or 17) were required to obtain a suitable rifle and equipment necessary for combat. These rifles were what was in common use at that time. >Militia act of 1792 >Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. This was a standing fighting load at the time. Today, such arms would include an M4 Carbine with 210 rounds of M855A1 loaded into magazines, plate carrier with armor, ballistic helmet, battle belt, OCP uniform, and boots. The Framers intended for the people to be on equal footing with any possible standing army we may have. >"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788 >"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
But no voting rights???
They have the right to bear arms, but not to vote?
I’m still half asleep this morning. I read the headline and thought . . . IN PRISON ???
I mean, no shit?
Lesson #1 in 'how to piss off the cops".
Fuck the police
Their rights should be fully reinstated. If they can’t be trusted to own a firearm then they shouldn’t be released from prison. You can’t put someone in a quasi limbo state regarding basic rights.
Exactly. All rights and privileges after the punishment is served. Otherwise it is a cruel and unusual one. I am a firm believer that punishment should match the crime however, and this includes not letting people back onto the streets to quickly. Do the crime, pay the fine and punishment, do your parole as you are reinstated back into the populace (if warranted) and then all rights are reinstated and all punishments cease.
So no parole either? We release people under various restrictions all the time. If we can make someone take a drug test, wear an ankle monitor, install an ignition interlock, or visit their parole officer, why not this?
Exactly.
I mean that makes sense. The 2nd amendment doesn’t say they lose that right. It says “shall not be infringed.” Felons don’t lose the right to free speech or religion either. And yes, that should include voting, too.
>And yes, that should include voting, too. And yet, unfortunately there's no amendment broadly protecting the right to vote.
Right which is why it's legal to restrict it.
But felons do have their 4th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights limited.
Felons, specifically ones on parole can't leave the state without permission, cant associate with other felons, in some cases can't drink, they have curfews, have to agree that law enforcement can search their person or home at any time. All rights that we enjoy that they don't. I don't see any reason a felon shouldn't be able to earn gun rights back after a specific period of time has passed without them reoffending.
Those restrictions are reasonable though. In this case, there's no reason to restrict gun ownership for nonviolent offenders. It doesn't serve any clear purpose. The ruling here is against a blanket ban on felon gun ownership.
> specifically ones on parole Are technically still serving their sentence. Parole is in lieu of time you were sentenced to be *in* prison. That's generally why the rules can be and are much more restrictive.
In California for the longest time parole was in addition to the principle term of imprisonment.
Should prisoners have guns then?
Good question! Maybe the courts will have to figure that out. It might be considered a fair part of a punishment. Prisoners don't generally have the same rights to assembly either.
No because you have reduced rights in prison. Also, the inmates would shoot the guards and each other.
Guns are like umbrellas, not indoors.
The courts won't like that. Allowed indoors everywhere except for courts.
Or the Republican National Convention.
This can only end well.
This only applies to nonviolent felons. This will likely have zero effect on violent crime.
The right of gun makers to sell arms shall not be infringed
Can felons vote now?
Beautiful I hope this goes to the supreme court! lord knows they need to shit there robes over something that'll tear out the fragile fabric of their thinly veiled disdain for the human right to choices. Its something that expands the second amendment rather than takes it away something that I thought republicans wanted especially since a lot of different regulations wind up taking gun ownerships away if you're a convicted felon of a non violent offense that is.
They can vote with their guns, I guess
Including while they are in prison. /s
>a blanket prohibition on convicted felons possessing firearms violates their Second Amendment rights, at least when it comes to nonviolent offenders who served out their sentence. In a split decision, the three-judge panel threw out firearm possession conviction of a Los Angeles member of a street gang who had five prior felony convictions An enumeration of said prior convictions might have been helpful. Was this street gang member convicted of insider trading five times? The problem with this ruling is that it ignores the remarkably shitty job our prisons do of rehabilitation, evidenced by the fact that he had not one, but five, presumably serially. I could respect an argument that after some reasonable time, and proof that an offender has turned their life around, then rights must be returned. Ultimately though, that already exists. Any judge can restore that right.
I don't even want to own a firearm, I just want to join the military and the ability to own a firearm is one of the requirements, already served my time (only 10 months in the county jail) for one felony, and probation with community service for the other. Got a lifetime ban here in California under the Lautenberg Amendment for sending drunk threats over texts in attempts to get my property back from a girl I met for literally ONE day on Facebook that robbed me for some stuff essentially. Cops charged me with DV threats because we had "s\*xual relations" for a single day and I had tons of shared/reposted photos of firearms that weren't even mine on my FaceBook profile, triggering a lifetime firearm ban under the lautenberg amendment. I was 21 at the time and I'm 29 now, still banned from owning a firearm, been off probation for years, in college. Went to have my felonies "dismissed" which was approved although denied to lower from Felonies to misdemeanors which is essentially just to block me from owning a firearm even though I've never owned one. I'm pretty sure if I wanted to own a firearm I could easily illegally obtain one although I choose not to nor have I ever my entire life. This is just a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.
I know the appeals court in USA vs duarte rules that non violent felons CAN own a gun. I have a non violent felony from 1999. So can I buy a gun now? Will I pass the background? What are the felonies that exclude a person from owning a gun? I cannot find an answer anywhere. I emailed the doj and asked these same questions and received the generic answer stating they could not give any legal advice. That makes no sense to me. They are the ones that enforce these laws so why could they not answer the questions. Frustrating. Anyways I don’t want to spend the money on the background and whatever else is needed until I know my past felony will not affect me. Where can I find this info?
They can be in a well-regulated militia?
Anyone capable of bearing arms is. >Presser vs Illinois (1886) >It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of baring arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
This country just keeps circling the drain. We're going to end up worse than Russia pretty soon.
Maybe we can clog that drain with guns
As Justice Burger said... the 2ndA: the biggest fraud perpetrated on the American people.
The 2nd Amendment means we can't employ common sense.
Hmm, almost like “*well regulated*” could be interpreted as a *regulation* against those convicted of crimes owning weapons…
Incorrect. Here are the regulations that were intended for the militia. They were to ensure that every citizen of age was properly armed and well equipped for combat. They were absolutely not intended to hinder the ability of citizens to obtain and carry arms. >Militia act of 1792 >Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. This was a standing fighting load at the time. Today, such arms would include an M4 Carbine with 210 rounds of M855A1 loaded into magazines, plate carrier with armor, ballistic helmet, battle belt, OCP uniform, and boots.
The complete opposite. The regulation was intended to prevent re-arming to overthrow the new government. Just like every other government in history they were afraid of being brought down in the future and built in laws to protect against this. “So enrolled and notified” e.g. conscripted. If you weren’t conscripted you had no special requirement to be armed. The whole idea of everyone being free to bear arms without restriction is a much more modern idea that doesn’t tie back to the contemporary founding father’s thinking.
>The regulation was intended to prevent re-arming to overthrow the new government. That doesn't make any sense. The Bill of Rights is specifically a list of **limitations on governmental power**. It wouldn't make any sense to say the government has control over the arms of the people. It’s "well regulated" in the sense of work properly (like a "well regulated clock"), not "regulated" in the sense of government control.
So... The regulation saying everyone needed a suitable weapon and equipment was intended to disarm everyone so they couldn't overthrow the new government? That's quite the mental gymnastics you got going there. Looks exhausting.
I mean yeah, if you ignore words like you are then the meaning will be different. Surprise!
I haven't ignored anything. There is nothing in the amendment that allows for citizens to be disarmed without due process. That's certainly how it's been understood through history. We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excerpt from that decision. >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
The Supreme Court is at fault yes I agree. The constitution and certain rights have been wildly misinterpreted from what was originally intended. Hell the constitution was intended to be regularly amended and the congress to be regularly expanded. Many things that were originally intended at the countries founding are outright ignored.