Joined
·
2,308 Posts
I copied this all from the opinion for anyone who didn't feel like reading all the legal language. It's taken from about the first half of the document. I made a couple of parenthetical insertions as references to an older court case. I feel like it's the Fourth of July!!!! The Bill of Rights lives!
"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…Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts Legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion
The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.†(1867 court case)
“Right of the People.†The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.†The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people†two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the peopleâ€). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective†rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right†attributed to “the people†refer to anything other than an individual right.
As we will describe below, the “militia†in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the peopleâ€â€”those who were male, able bodied, and within a
certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms†in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the
people.†Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms†had in the 18th century. In numerous in-
stances, “bear arms†was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.“bear arms†did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit.
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guaran-
tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right.
(1787 court case) It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down. It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting."
please not I did not include anything about the dissenting opinion because I am biased against.......... LOSERS!!!!! HA.
"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…Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts Legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion
The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.†(1867 court case)
“Right of the People.†The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.†The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people†two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the peopleâ€). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective†rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right†attributed to “the people†refer to anything other than an individual right.
As we will describe below, the “militia†in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the peopleâ€â€”those who were male, able bodied, and within a
certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms†in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the
people.†Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms†had in the 18th century. In numerous in-
stances, “bear arms†was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.“bear arms†did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit.
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guaran-
tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right.
(1787 court case) It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down. It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting."
please not I did not include anything about the dissenting opinion because I am biased against.......... LOSERS!!!!! HA.