« Washington, DC robberies | Main | Hunter Biden plea deal falls apart »
Forgot that I'd written this....
On the duality of the Second Amendment.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
The First amendment is another multi-faceted amendment affirming several rights of "the people".. If the first was interpreted as restrictive as the 2nd the rights to speech, press, and assembly would only apply to religious institutions just as the government tries to use the militia clause to regulate the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
The 2nd amendment reserves the right to keep and bear arms to individual persons, while also affirming the authority of free states to form and arm militias. These two things are not mutually exclusive, and doesn't give the state any power to restrict individually owned arms.
This is reinforced by the 10th amendment which sets a hierarchy of rights of the people over powers granted to governments. The Bill of Rights was passed as an interlocking package.
The tenth amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, OR to the people."
"When New Hampshire gave the Constitution the vital ninth vote, it sought a guarantee that 'Congress shall never disarm any citizen except such as are or have been in actual rebellion.'"
This might come in handy in US v Rahimi.
The first only covers 1 Right, to assemble. Religion, speech, and press are not Rights per the language but are societal constructs and the 1st only targeted the feds because each state already had laws restricting religion, speech, and the press. The concept of these as rights is a modern invention.
The second covers 3 points. The restriction on infringing on a well regulated Militia. The restriction on infringing on the Right of the People to keep Arms. The restriction on infringing on the Right of the People to bear Arms, meaning to carry ANY WAY A PERSON WANTS and to USE the Arms.
The free State includes the free State of Being, freedom, not simply a geopolitical entity.
I had an alternative interpretation come to mind.
The prefatory clause states that a "free state" needs an armed population. So what happens when a state decides to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms? Very simply it is no longer a free state.
No tyrant worth their salt would allow political opponents to be armed. The right to keep and bear arms was included in the second amendment knowing that any future tyrants would attempt to infringe on this right. Think of it as sucker bait for aspiring tyrants.
For instance, California Governor Gavin Newsom recently stated that California is the freest state in the union. However California infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment says that California is a tyranny and Governor Newsom is a tyrant.
OK, so California is a tyranny. Now what!? Start by reading a truly revolutionary document; our declaration of independence.
Well You’re A Preeminent Con Law Scholar ALWAYS!