Second amendment seems simple and straight forward, most court rulings(supreme or otherwise) usually agree with a straight reading of the constitution.
So how did it get to the point that many of the large urban areas in the USA have blatantly second amendment violating laws? Banning handguns and such.
How did it get this way, why was it ever accepted at all, why is it only recently there has been pushback?
At the risk of poisoning the well, my personal opinion is that it is basically minority racism. The thought of black people openly carrying guns in urban areas is sufficiently scary that people just accepted this blatantly unconstitutional situation.
Perhaps we can blame the small-dicked zealots who think they have a “right” to any kind of weapon imaginable, in any quantity. We have a constitutional right to “bear arms,” not to walk down city streets with a private arsenal. And you wouldn’t think background checks would be debatable.
Is there any state or part of the USA where that has ever been legal?
But clearly there are parts of the USA where owning firearms is legal, and parts where it isn’t.
I guess an analogy would be if major cities banned free speech saying that the varied population was more prone to riots, but free speech is fine and dandy in Utah, I don’t think that would be tolerated.
Gun control advocates would probably point out that two weapons is plenty enough for someone to carry out mayhem on the level of Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, etc.
Talk of nuclear weapons is always a frivolous and pointless sidetrack in these discussions. At no point in American jurisprudence has the “arms” of the second amendment been interpreted to mean anything more than small arms such as a single common soldier in a contemporary military force would be expected to bear.
That said, I would hardly describe the second amendment as “so violated.” There are some localities with restrictions that are probably (or have already been found to be) unconstitutional, but by and large the nation’s policies with regard to personal ownership of firearms are pretty liberal. If I had my druthers there are a few things I’d deregulate a bit more (remove all restrictions on silencers, for example). But I’m far more worried about the first, fourth, and fifth amendments, which seem to be constantly under threat of erosion on a breathtaking scale at the national level.
I believe the second amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Howsabout using the entire quote instead of cherry picking, m’kay?
And if you prefer an alternative version with a different comma, I’m fine with that.
Please note I started this thread in IMHO to avoid rules lawyering about recent rulings. I’m more interested in WHY this was tolerated for so so long a time.
“Well regulated,” as commonly used and widely understood in the eighteenth century, meant in good working order, functioning properly. A well regulated watch kept good time. Since the phrase has fallen out of everyday use, many have misinterpreted it to mean something along the lines of “carefully controlled.” A well regulated militia is not one that’s bound by rules and regulations, it’s one that is capable and effective.
Similarly, “militia” was understood to include civilians ready to take up arms should it be called for. It did not mean National Guard units and the like (nor did it mean nutcase self-styled paramilitary groups). Every able-bodied citizen is a potential militia member.
That said, Supreme Court rulings over the years have accepted that some limitations on bearing arms are reasonable, just as some restrictions on free speech are reasonable. There’s has been a longstanding and ongoing tug of war as to just which limitations are reasonable/constitutional and which aren’t.
A fair number of people have felt that some degree of gun control was a measure for the public good, and acceptable under the constitution, just as certain limits on free speech were acceptable. As with many issues, the pendulum swings, and the current Supreme Court has seen fit to swing it toward less restrictions.
In New York City, minority racism seems to have been a factor a century ago, but not towards blacks – Italians were the bogeyman of the day. Check out the Sullivan Act, particularly the “Controversy” section.
Straight forward? I have no idea what the the second amendment means. Neither does the Supreme Court. What is an arm? What is a militia? The language is not clear.
In the 1700s all there were just muskets and cannons.
In the 1800s more interesting guns appeared. But not everyone was allowed to own them. Black people, natives, women…
In the 1900s firearms technology advanced, and along came regulations. The big one was The National Firearms Act of 1934. Congress came very close to banning all pistols along with the machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and suppressers. (And IMHO they should have. Handguns account for 80% of our 25,000 annual murders, and are useless in a Revolution. Too late now though…)
In the second half of the century, the tone regarding the second amendment was set Chief Justice Burger. A Republican appointed by Eisenhower. He thought the ‘militia’ part was significant, and was not so sure individuals had any right. He is the main reason New York and DCs bans were…tolerated.
If that was the accepted meaning at the time then your watch example is a rather poor one. A watch which keeps good time is one in which its action is very carefully controlled, that being the essential requirement for accuracy.
The entire Bill of Rights has never been found to bind the states. It’s been done piecemeal as cases come up. The Second Amendment was found to bind the states in 2010. That’s late compared to the other most-quoted parts (although I think many people might be surprised to learn that the Supreme Court was okay with double jeopardy in state courts as late as 1937, and did not overturn that decision until 1969), but there are still parts that states don’t have to follow. Quite a few states have no grand juries, for example.