Which parts of the US Constitution need to have a more modern interpretation?

this is a message board, not a court. do you think the founders intended their new government to have the power to ban or restrict what arms private citizens could own or possess?

 

I love this sort of arrogance in post.

 

Because this is a discussion forum, not a "look how smart my new toy is".

What could be more simplistic than using AI to generate longwinded diatribes. It's an ego trip, not interested in discussion.

Ain't happening.

 

Well, they did ban guns from those who were unwilling to join the militia, and they kept track of who had guns and who didn't. We have been through this before. Its a matter of historical fact.

 

Not in the least. So you obviously think that if the 2nd is gone all guns will vanish.

 

Yet you ask for a yes or no, typical of a lawyer on cross in a court of law.

I think the broad and somewhat ambiguous language of the Second Amendment suggests that the founders left room for regulation by design. Historical records show that even at the time of the founding, there were various state laws regulating the storage and carrying of firearms, indicating an acceptance of some level of control over arms (as seen in the discussions in sources like Cambridge Core and JSTOR). These regulations were typically focused on maintaining public safety and order, which supports the idea that the founders recognized the need for some regulatory measures.

As for the debate on state versus federal authority in gun regulation, it's indeed more complex than a simple yes or no answer. Initially, most gun regulations were enacted at the state level, reflecting the founders' preference for keeping such powers more localized, as indicated by the fact that the federal government did not heavily involve itself in gun regulation until the 20th century. This historical perspective shows that the scope and authority for gun regulation have evolved but always within a framework that allows for both state and federal roles, adapted to the needs and conditions of different eras.

So, a qualified yes.

 

You should talk. How many of your arrogant, sloppy, assumptive, posts do you want me to quote?

 

Well, of course. The entire structure of the Constitution was designed to handle situations the Founders saw on the horizon. But, unlike the path you seem to advocate, they looked for the least restrictive path. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in the broadest and least restrictive tone, possible.

Which describes what we have now. States do write additional laws in accordance with state desires and requirements with a constitutional eminence, of course.

 

I will agree that the individual v militia context debate has been going on since the ratification of the constitution, but it wasn't a settled argument until heller. I will agree that owning fireams was seen as a right, but NO MORE than the frontiersman viewed owning a horse was a right, but the ISSUE IS, did the framers want the individual right ELEVATED to 'all citizens outside of the militia' in the Bill of Rights?. There is no wording other than the vague, horribly written, second amendment. That's not a strong enough evidence to me, that they did, particularly when the main clause is militia driven, and the dependent clause which follows, refers to 'the people', which CLEARLY DID NOT MEAN EVERYONE. So which people? THE MILITIA, it says on in the main clause. This 'prefatory/operative' crap Scalia pulled out of his butt. And particularly when the arguments for the second amendment were in the context of preserving what? THE MILITIA. Why? they needed Virginia's signature to make 9, which is the 2/3rd necessary for radification. Madison's original draft said 'free country' which they change to 'free state' Why? Patrick Henry, and his Virginia pals, needed to preserve the militia because on of his concerns was slave patrol and he was a plantation owner. And they saw that standing armies were a threat to the militia. It's all about THE MILITIA. That was what they were thinking about when they put the second amendment in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

the argument is NOT about banning guns. That is your fear. No one is going to take your guns way, you'll always and forever be allowed sufficient arms to protect yourself, your family and property. That freedom might not extend everything some crazies might want to, like shoot bazookas at rabbits and quit fogging the landscape with that bogus argument. You want unlimited freedom to do whatever the hell you want with guns. Well I got bad news for you, that is not historically the tradition. There's always been regulation of some kind.

Your premise is a logical fallacy. Absence of that document doesn't mean absence of federal authority. Given broad language of the second amendment, we can easily presume they allowed for some federal regulation, no doubt that was the reasoning behind regulation involving the commerce clause. Even Scalia said the right wasn't absolute.

No one is saying that AMerican's can't own guns to defend home and property. That's been a tradition since the frontier days.

The issue was why the second amendment. History shows us that it is militia centric. All the arguments at the ratification convention by the anti-feds were their concern about standing armies, seen as anathema to freedom, a plight which is anachronistic in modernity. Just because guns, if we interpret the true reason for the second amendment, isn't elevated to a right decoupled from the militia context of the second amendment, doesn't mean Americans do not have the right by penumbra, as enumerated in the 9th amendment.

I'm not seeing any evidence that the framers wanted guns to be ELEVATED as an individual right in the bill of rights outside of the militia. Hell, they were arguing for no bill of rights because that could be interpreted that rights not mentioned are not rights. The right of gun ownership outside of militia context simply is not mentioned, where upon 'the people' did NOT include everyone, only those IN THE MILITIA. That does NOT mean they wanted to confiscate guns from those not in the militia, no more than they wanted to confiscate horses, cows, milk, hay, timber, tack, and all the accoutrements of frontier life.


When you argue that the Second Amendment strictly secures an individual right, you’re highlighting one aspect of a complex issue. The inclusion of a "well-regulated Militia" in the preamble suggests that the framers were considering collective security alongside individual rights. This idea of balance might support a more nuanced interpretation, where both personal and communal safety concerns are addressed.

About your critique that I focus on "bear" over "keep"—it's fair to say both are crucial. "Keep" might imply home possession, while "bear" extends to carrying arms publicly. Historical use of these terms are decisively militaristic.

You mention a conflict with Article One, Section Eight, and the Tenth Amendment, viewing any regulation as unconstitutional. Yet, historical and legal analyses, including Supreme Court interpretations, suggest that some regulation is compatible with the Second Amendment. These regulations aim to balance individual rights with public safety, which isn’t inherently unconstitutional but a practical necessity recognized over time. As I've stated, Bruen further constrains this idea, but I've told you, as a number of Judges have, as well, that Bruen isn't workable and it's just wrong.

Lastly, the challenge to find documents from the Founders that support federal restrictions may miss the point. The absence of explicit documents doesn’t necessarily mean the Founders were unanimously against regulation. Historical context is key, and their writings suggest a range of views on governance and rights, including an openness to future legislative and judicial interpretation to adapt to changing societal needs.

 

Yes! Neither the federal government NOR the state governments. And the REASON for that was that they felt some of the states were neglecting the militias. They didn't trust a standing army to defend us. So the militias were NECESSARY. They are no longer necessary. And today we TRUST our standing army. So, following the question posed in this thread... we don't even need to change the interpretation. REALITY has changed and, for that reason, the 2nd A is obsolete.

Well... if it's a "natural right", that means the 2nd A is unnecessary. We have now come to the same conclusion from two different viewpoints.

 

As if.

And what do you mean by 'statist'. Give an example. Be specific, because you toss that trope around quite a bit, on this forum.

 

Turtledude incessantly conflates our pointing out to him that the history of the second amendment is all about militia preservation for fear of standing armies, and, as such, is anachronism today, he conflates that truth as a pretense for banning all guns. Some guns should be banned, but no one is arguing ALL guns, given American tradition since the frontier days is to own that which is necessary to defend one's home, oneself, and ones property. But Turtledude thinks it is, and then he tries to tie it with 'statism' and who knows what he means by that. Just vague right wing echo chamber tropes,

 

It is up to you to prove that point thus far you have failed utterly.

 

Statist one who believes that government must run everything through an ever growing bureuacracy.

 

Your failure to adequately deal with a reality you don't like is duly noted.

 

It might sound like a technicality nit pick, but it actually is serious and meaningful. SCOTUS will never rule a statute unconstitutional just because it is not provided for in the words or meanings of the Preamble.

 

if you pretend the second amendment was not about individual rights-that is statist position. if you don't trust honest Americans to own the same firearms that civilian government employees have access to-that is statist thinking

 

weak stuff. you and a few of your fellow travelers, proffer twisted self contradictory misinterpretations of the second amendment, in order to work backwards to find that the obvious intent of the amendment doesn't exist.

 

you create a dishonest narrow misunderstanding of the second amendment and then pretend that this narrow dishonest misunderstanding is now obsolete because you know damn well that the proper understanding of the amendment will exist as long as there is anyone in any government position that wants to ban firearms for the citizenry

 

there you have it folks. note the hyperbole about bazookas? Note the specious claims that NO ONE wants to take guns away. Note the absolute lie about "unlimited freedom to do whatever the hell you want with your guns.

 

what government did that?

 

We are talking about the founding fathers. They did their share of gun grabbing, so they must have believed in it. They had their reasons. The 2A was written later.

 

not relevant and another bit of silly contrarian arguments. we are talking about the new federal government that was given no gun banning powers and the second amendment reiterated that

this thread is about the constitution-not municipal laws, or state laws

 

Yes. Scalia makes up the term "prefatory clause" to attempt to minimize it. From the linguists I've read this clause is most frequently referred to as the "absolute clause" or "absolute phrase", and it's the second part they call the "main clause". This is because the structure is borrowed from Latin of an Absolute Construction. The absolute clause expresses the time or cause for the action expressed in the main clause. Absent that condition, the action in the main clause becomes irrelevant (ie obsolete). The thread "English 101" has several examples.

But linguists don't spend too much time explaining how they should be called. What is clear is that Scalia tries to draw attention away from the absolute clause any way he can.

He also completely ignores the fact that the DISCUSSIONS leading to the ratification of the 2nd A were mostly about how to protect the militias from neglect by the states. Especially because they expected an attack from the British at any point. And they didn't trust a standing army to protect the nation. There was practically NO mention of "owning guns". We know of one small remark to ridicule the idea that gun ownership should be in the Constitution. Heller is the perfect example of the Supreme Court abusing its power and actually LEGISLATING. It has happened in other Supreme Courts, for sure. But Scalia's brazenness is unprecedented.

Scalia attempted to use History and Linguistics in his reasoning. And he completely obliterated both. He may have been a great legal mind. But in those two disciplines he gets an F.

 

Ok, so you went from founding fathers to something else. Got it. I was responding to the post which mentioned founding father, - you know, the guys who wrote the Constitution. Not sure why you always say "contrarian" when people bring up facts which you do not like.

Its about modern interpretation, which is necessary when it comes to things which have 'evolved', like addition of Air Force and Paper Money and such. Things change, so we have to think about how the founders would have written the Constitution if they could have seen 200+ years into the future.