It is unclear if it should be the fight for the Second or if it is the fight against the second. Regardless it is best to know your enemy.

In the best of worlds, what would happen when a new law was being proposed is that the lawmakers would look at the constitution and say “This isn’t constitutional.” and it would die. It doesn’t happen that way. The number of letters I’ve gotten from my Senators and representatives saying “I support the Second and this bill will not infringe on the rights of gun owners.”

The battle is waged between those that know what is happening with the troops of the ignorant sounding off.

“It is my right to possess and carry arms!” is the battle cry but regardless of how true that statement is, the Evil and their minions can’t accept that simple statement.

The attack on the Second falls into different vectors but they are always the same.

1. The Second Amendment doesn’t apply to you.
2. The Second Amendment doesn’t apply to that.
3. The Second Amendment doesn’t apply there.
4. The Second Amendment is wrong for today so it doesn’t apply to ____.
5. The Second Amendment is not unlimited and must be balanced against societies needs as expressed by the government.

Argument 1 is based on the word “Militia” within the Second. The infringers, correctly, point out that until Heller the Supreme court had never ruled that the Second was an individual right. This is because until the infringers started to claim it was a collective right there was no need for a Supreme Court ruling.

The reason it took so long to be heard by the Court is because nobody had standing for the longest time and if they did have standing the State was often willing to take a loss rather than let a case get to the Supreme Court.

Heller eviscerated the “Collective” right argument. They went through each and every part of the Second and defined and explained what each part meant.

The second applies to YOU. That’s the end of it.

You can see that in the way that the legal landscape changed after Heller.

Argument 2 is that some arm or part of an arm isn’t covered by the Second. Since there were no center fire cartridges in 1791 then the Second doesn’t apply to center fire pistols and rifles. It only applies to muskets. The argument is so ridiculous as to be barely worth noting. Except it is repeated over and over again.

The Supreme court addressed this in Heller by explicitly stating that it does apply to all arms. Not just arms as they existed in 1791.

Argument 3 was already in effect in 2008 but it became the goto argument for the time being. It being that since Heller identified a purpose of the Second, defense of self within the home, that that was the only place were you could exercise your Second Amendment rights.

This was slapped down with McDonald which stated that the right to bear arms extended outside of the home. This turned every state that was “No Issue” into a “May Issue” state. Of course some states, like Hawaii, just never issued any.

---

This is where things stood after the Heller and McDonald opinions. The states that were reasonable were reasonable. Many states moving from “Shall Issue” to “Constitutional Carry.” Unfortunately the infringing states responded to “May Issue” requirements by making it so difficult to get permission from the government to carry that it was impossible for the average person to get a CCW.

In 2018 New York State Rifle & PIstol Association Inc filed suit against the City of New York. The suit alleged that NYC’s “rule” (go to jail if you violate said rule) that you could not transport your firearm out of the city was unconstitutional. The city and state argued that it was only a small infringement because you could have firearms stored outside of the city that you could transport to outside ranges and competitions. It was only your city firearm that couldn’t leave the city.

In arguments the city claimed that this rule kept the people safe and had to be kept and that the court needed to balance the minor infringement v. the greater good of society. The city won this argument in front of the second circuit court. The rule could stand.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme court. The city and state argued that the Court should not hear the case and that it was a well balanced rule that didn’t really intruded on the core of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari. New York City leaped into action and the police department changed the rule. The city then argued the case was moot. This didn’t seem to hold much sway with the court so the state of New York passed a law making the repeal of the “rule” law. The city and state then argued the case was moot and the court agreed.

April 27, 2020

Held: Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule on transporting firearms is moot, and any claim for damages with respect to that rule may be addressed in the first instance by the court of appeals and the district court on remand.

This left us where we have been for the last 10 years before Bruen

The infringers during this time turned to argument 5 in court and arguments 4 and 5 in public.

Argument 4 can be truly argued in good faith and it is the only path forward for the infringers. This argument leads to a proposal of an amendment to the constitution to change the second amendment. Either to repeal it or to replace it. The problem with this is that the second amendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment acknowledges that the right to keep and bear arms pre-exists and denies the government the ability to infringe on that right.

While the infringers get most of the air time in expressing their opinions regarding the horrors of guns, the fact of the matter is that it would be very difficult to get enough states to vote for an amendment to repeal or modify the second amendment. This is not currently a concern but it is something we need to keep our eye on.

Part of this argument is that a person shooting in self-defense is acting as judge, jury and executioner. I.e. the woman that shoots the man raping her should have instead held him for the cops and then gone to court to argue that he did indeed rape her.

As stupid as that might sound to you it is an argument they make.

---

This takes us to “means-end” balancing. Because the Heller opinion said that some restrictions could be left in place as long as they were within the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of ratification the infringers leaped on the concept of “means-end”.

“Means-end” is simply the government (the courts are a part of the government) deciding how much of your rights they will stomp on. Be it a law forcing an artist to create art on demand for any person to a law requiring you to give up your papers on demand, all such mean-ends are allowing the government to violate your rights.

It was and is especially egregious in terms of the second amendment. The government could make a claim that a law would make society better or safer or would make children safer. This allowed the government to create the law in the first place. It passed means-ends in the chambers and at the President’s or Governors office.

When it was challenged the court would decide if the law did infringe on your rights. Or they would just stipulate that a law infringed. They would then decide how much it infringed which would allow them to pick the level of balancing that would be performed.

In other words, the scale was never fair. In every case the court would decide just how much to add in favor of the government before they started analysis. Once the decision was made as to how hard they would be pressing down on the scales of justice with their thumb, the court would then hear the claim of the government.

Since all gun control laws are of a predictive nature there have never been in real facts to back up the government claims. “A large capacity magazine ban will save lives!” Why will it? What proof do you have? Has it ever been proven that it works.

“Well it would have been worse if they had access to large capacity magazines so of course it worked.”

“It would have been worse if…” is a non-argument that is used constantly. We don’t know what would have happened if… When we suggest that the Uvaldi shooting might have been stopped sooner if the teachers had access to firearms we are told that there is no proof of that. At the same time they tell us it would have been so much worse if the teachers had shot back.

---

Which takes us to the post Bruen situation. At this time the infringers are throwing everything at the wall in a effort to see what sticks.

They are trying the “sensitive locations” with the idea of making the ability to carry without violating a restricted location so difficult that you decide not to carry.

They are trying the “good moral character” gambit. It isn’t that you have to have a good reason to carry, you have to be a good person. In many “May Issue” states being arrested invalidates your right to bear a firearm. It doesn’t matter if you were convicted. It doesn’t matter if the case was dropped. It is just the act of being accused and arrested that will keep you from getting a permit.

It is federal law that a person that gets an ex-parte restraining order placed on you has in fact made you a prohibited person.

They are attempting to find laws in the late 1800s, post civil war, and early 1900s to justify their current infringements.

There are a couple of court cases where the courts have ruled that the government banning something and then claiming that the banned item is “uncommon” in order to justify keeping the ban is not an acceptable argument. This is one of the arguments made post Heller

They are also using the argument that restricting some firearms doesn’t infringe or that placing limits on how fast or easy it is to get a firearm isn’t infringing.

---

While all of this is happening in the courts, the media is pushing a narrative that the Supreme court got it wrong. In Heller they got it wrong because Militia!!! In McDonald they got it wrong because states should be able to protect the children. In Bruen the court got it wrong because means-end is the correct way to judge rights.

There are dozens of articles out there claiming that late 1800s through early 1900s should be considered as part of the history and tradition of gun control laws, even though Heller said otherwise. 1791 defines the history and tradition, 1868 can be used to confirm that history and tradition but NOT to contradict it.

In addition there is the never ending drum beat of “The Supreme Court is illegitimate!” The argument being that because the court is now 6-3 originalist vs leftist that it no longer represents the people. As compared to when it was 7-2 leftist vs originalist when every decision was final forever and ever and there was no legitimate reason to complain.

The last argument that keeps popping up is that gun owners should be required to get training before being allowed to own guns.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”eyJ0eXBlIjoiZXh0ZXJuYWwiLCJwb3N0IjowLCJwb3N0X2xhYmVsIjoiIiwidXJsIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud2FzaGluZ3RvbnBvc3QuY29tL3dvcmxkLzIwMjIvMTEvMjUvZ3VuLXJpZ2h0cy10ZXN0LWN6ZWNoLXJlcHVibGljLyIsImltYWdlX2lkIjowLCJpbWFnZV91cmwiOiIiLCJ0aXRsZSI6IldoYXQgaWYgR3VuIG93bmVycyBoYWQgdG8gcGFzcyBhIHRlc3Q/Iiwic3VtbWFyeSI6IlRoZSBDemVjaCBSZXB1YmxpYyBvZmZlcnMgdGhlIGFuc3dlci4uLiIsInRlbXBsYXRlIjoidXNlX2RlZmF1bHRfZnJvbV9zZXR0aW5ncyJ9″]

The Washington Post argues that gun training should be required.  For some reason the believe that knowing the best way to store black powder, gun powder, and matches is relevant to owning firearms.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

The New Republic thinks that the Supreme Courts Bruen decision is just to hard for judges to follow and besides, look at these horrible decisions federal judges have been making where they didn’t use “means-end”

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

And because Justice Thomas refuses to keep his wife under control and not to recuse himself the court has serious ethics issues.  And Amy Coney Barrett is hearing cases regarding religion…

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

The Nation feels that it was conservatives that leaked the Dobbs decision because somebody said a conservative told them what the court would hold in regards to a different abortion case years ago.

The Evil that exists will attack anything and everything that stands in their way.

On November 22, 2022 Judge John L Sinatra, Jr issued a preliminary injunction against NY State’s CCIA.

Another one of New York’s new restrictions imposed in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision is the private property exclusion.  That new provision makes it a felony for a license holder to possess a firearm on all private property, unless the relevant property holders actually permit such possession with a sign or by expressed consent.

The Supreme Court’s cases addressing the individual’s right to keep and bear arms — from Heller and McDonald to its June 2022 decision in Bruen — dictate that New York’s private property exclusion is equally unconstitutional.  Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the current enactment is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations.  As set forth below, New York fails that test.

This is the second injunction by Judge Sinatra, Jr finding parts of NY States CCIA unconstitutional.  He is teasing out these injunctions and more are expect.

In addition he told the state to pound sand when they requested a hold for 3 days in order for them to appeal.

Here, a stay pending appeal is not warranted. As discussed above, Plaintiff’s constitutional rights are being violated absent a preliminary injunction. The State has not established irreparable injury in the absence of a stay. The balance of hardships and public interest weigh in favor of Plaintiff, also as discussed above. Finally, it is Plaintiff who has demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. As in Hardaway, legislative enactments may not eviscerate the Bill of Rights. Every day they do is one to many.

It is highly likely that the state will appeal to the 2nd circuit court where it will be heard by a panel of three judges. Depending on the make up of that panel the injunction may or may not be stayed. A betting man will be on the 2nd circuit issuing a stay.

Judge Sinatra, Jr is referencing Judge Suddaby’s discussions in Antonyuk and Judge Suddaby references Judge Sinatra, Jr’s discussions.

These two judges are working toward the same ends. It would not be surprising to learn that they are actually talking to one another.

Next steps in this case:

The State will appeal. The 2nd circuit court will issue a stay. The case will move forward. The judge will find for the Plaintiffs. The State will appeal. The 2nd circuit court will empanel a three judge panel on an emergency basis which will find for the State. Christian, FPC and 2A Foundation will appeal to the en blanc (full 9 judge court) which will agree to hear the case on a non-emergency basis 6 to 12 months in the future. The Plaintiffs might appeal for a stay from the Supreme Court but that is unlikely to happen. A year or so will go by with the State delaying the entire time. Finally the 2nd circuit court will hear the case.

The optimist says that the full 2nd circuit finds the CCIA unconstitutional. If not, the second best would be that the 2nd Circuit finds for the state in full which is then appealed to the Supreme court. A worse case would be for the 2nd circuit to find for the Plaintiffs in some very very limited way, making it more difficult to appeal.

Christian et All v. Nigrelli and Flynn (CCIA) preliminary injunction. (PDF)

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

I grew up a Navy Brat. I went to collage and found myself the only conservative within my social group. I remember attending a political rally where my date gushed about “She’s going to be the first female vice-president!”

My date and I stayed friends, but we were not in a relationship when I questioned her about what the candidates were actually saying.

Throughout my life the left has always told me how much they hate my country, how evil we are.

In 1971 soldiers coming home from Vietnam were calling my country evil and claiming that the military of my country was murdering women and children in Vietnam

I rode my bike over 500 miles the week after 9/11. The entire country felt silent. The flags had gone up on the over passes. The country came together.

Months later they were chanting “Bush lied! People died!” because they didn’t find WMDs in Iraq. As my mentor put it: Iraq is about the size of California, see if you can find a couple of 55gal drums that hold biological weapons. At some point my put together a more complete breakdown of WMDs in Iraq.

We have the wife of the President of the United States:

The left is only “proud” when they are in control. When they lose the threaten to leave. If you don’t vote for them it is the destruction of our democracy.

The right travels a different path. I grew up with “I disagree with you but will defend to the death your right to say it.” “My country, right or wrong.” “Our country is the best.” “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

I’m proud of my country, even with Biden as President. I’m proud of my country, even as Obama tours the world bowing to heads of state. I’m always proud of my country.

There are events I’m not proud of, there are people I’m not proud of, but my country I’m proud of.

As suggested by Curby.

It is difficult to see why the British are so keen on removing knives from the general populace. If the goal of the gun control people was control, they have it. They have managed to remove arms and the ability to defend yourself from the subjects of Great Britain.

“Gun control isn’t about controlling guns, it is about control.” This is how we see it. Removing firearms from the general population of a country shifts control to the government and their thugs. Be it “official” thugs, or the “unofficial” thugs.

I’m an old fart. I’ve had a few interactions with law enforcement. The thing I quickly learned is the politeness of an officer veries in relationship to the number of legally armed people in the population or in the power differential between the citizen and the law enforcement officer.

The politiest cops I’ve ever encountered during a traffic stop were the MPs on post. Post had more stars running around than MGM in their hayday. I’ve observed the MPs pulling over a classic Mustang that was certainly speeding. The first MP went up to the drivers window and the other MP went into the drivers blind spot. The second MP had his holster flap released and his hand on his sidearm, ready. The first MP was exceedingly polite.

Why? The person that he stopped in that Mustang was just as likely to be a 2 star general as private.

When I’ve been stopped in shall issue states the cops have always been very polite. The rudest, nastiest cops have all been in no issue and “may issue” states.

If you watch British cop shows you will see them pushing their way into people homes all the time. Even if there are laws requiring warrants or permission cops just push in. There is very little risk. My Canadian friends tell me the same thing. Even though they don’t have to allow the cops in, cops push in all the time.

The last time the cops were at my house they were told to get off my porch and to step back before I exited to talk with him.

And he did.

When the people are armed, government is restricted. When the people are unarmed, the government is unrestricted. If there are restrictions in that case it comes from different parts of the government, think coups

Gun grabbers like to talk about “gun violence” as if guns were violent. They are not. My guns have never performed a single act, much less a violent act. They are inanimate objects. They have no soul, no personality, no will. They only do what a person causes them to do.

So programs aimed at reducing “gun violence” or improving “gun safety” by placing infringements on the people are doomed to fail. They are not addressing the right thing. They are targeting the law abiding gun owner and his right to keep and bear arms and ignoring the criminal.

It doesn’t matter to a mother if her child is killed with a rock, club, car or knive. Her child is dead. It is a horrific moment and I hope I never am in that situation. But if her child is killed with a gun her hurt is still the same but there are actors immediately jumping to direct that hurt into anger at the gun and all gun owners.

There was a short video a few years ago from a booth where “Moms Demand” was there talking about how they were all about “gun safety”. Somebody videoed while they were badgered with questions about how many trigger locks they had given out, how many safety courses had they taught, what educational materials did they have for k-5? The two women just got up and walked away rather than engage.

It is about infringing on gun rights and not about “gun safety” or “reducing gun violence” If you want to reduce “gun violence” then reduce violence.

One of Philadelphia’s key community-based anti-violence programs is disorganized, failing to properly train and empower staffers, struggling to achieve basic goals, and not ready to be evaluated on whether its efforts are meaningfully reducing the city’s gun violence.

So we have yet another example of a government to leftist money pipeline. That has no real goals and has managed to spend $5.3 million and has nothing to show for it.

They don’t even have a plan because they are so disorganized. Likely because they are afraid to do what is needed. Take criminals off the streets.

Community Crisis Intervention Program Evaluation

Of course, being a democrat project, failure is not an option. If it fails, it is because it wasn’t given enough funds or enough resources or enough time. Just try again, harder.

Erica Atwood, the city’s senior director for criminal justice and public safety, acknowledged in an interview that the reports pointed out some fundamental shortcomings. But she said she viewed the assessment as an opportunity to improve CCIP and actually expand it — correcting flaws identified in the reports by adding things like a director, more qualified staff members, and better training for a program she still views as an essential undertaking.

“I read it as: ‘We’ve got to do better. We’ve got to make changes. These are the changes we need to make, and we need to make them ASAP,’ ” Atwood said. “This work is way too important for us to kind of be lagging and dragging.”

A key Philly gun violence prevention program is struggling to meet basic goals, new report says

A high school senior in Indiana was shot during a law enforcement vocational training session when one of the deputies conducting the training session “accidentally” fired his service weapon, rather than a “dummy gun,” reports say.

On Thursday morning, Deputy Tim DisPennett, a 19-year veteran of the Vermillion County Sheriff’s Office, was conducting a vocational law enforcement class at South Vermillion County High School in Clinton, Indiana, about 15 miles north of Terre Haute. During a demonstration, DisPennett reportedly fired his service revolver, and the bullet from his gun grazed a male student.

A cop so ignorant that he didn’t know the difference between an inert blue plastic gun and his service weapon?

If it wasn’t a dummy weapon then it must have been some sort of training weapon. There are a few types out there. The main component of all of them is that they are easily identified as a training weapon.

The training weapons systems that allow you to use your own weapon replace the slide and barrel, again to make sure that you don’t have an Alec, like this deputy did.

H/T to Pistoleer Birdog357

In Bruen Justice Thomas stated that the plain text of the second amendment as understood at the time of its ratification along with the history and tradition shall guide our understanding of what is protected by the second amendment.

The operative clause of the second amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This is a limitation on the federal government at the time of ratification. It meant that the federal government could not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. It did not constrain state governments from infringing as they wished.

Because of this many state Constitutions have a right to keep and bear arms in them. For example:

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
— Massachusetts Declaration of Rights — Article 17

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. SEC. 16. The military shall, in all cases, and at all times, be in strict subordination to the civil power.
— Constitution of the State of Connecticut

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
— N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 4

Not all states have an explicit right to keep and bear arms. Part of the reason is that in 1868 the 14th amendment was ratified.

Under the 14th amendment the US constitution and the rights enshrined within it also restrict States and other political subdivisions of the States.

The 13th amendment said that the federal government could not enslave or force involuntary servitude on anybody except as a punishment for a crime for which the person has been duly convicted.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The 13th amendment didn’t apply to the states, cities, towns, counties or villages. It only applied to the federal government. It was only with the ratification of the 14th that the 13th applied to lower political subdivisions.

As part of that the 1st through 12th amendments were also incorporated.

The Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments to the Constitution, protects certain rights belonging to individuals and states against infringement by the federal government. While some provisions of the Constitution expressly prohibit the states from taking certain actions,1 the Bill of Rights does not explicitly bind the states,2 and the Supreme Court in early cases declined to apply the Bill of Rights to the states directly.3 However, following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to impose on the states many of the Bill of Rights’ limitations, a doctrine sometimes called “incorporation” against the states through the Due Process Clause.
— Amdt14.S1.4.1 Overview of Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

So we can see that the second amendment was ratified in 1791 and incorporated in 1868 and thus can be applied to any law or regulation within the US.

But Thomas said “the plain text” of the second amendment. The text isn’t plain at all. It talks about militias and free states, surely that means the right to bear arms is related to the state or militia in some way.

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

The Supreme court has answered this question. They have stated what all of the words in the second amendment mean.

First, the second amendment has a prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” and an operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.

The supreme court has stated exactly what the operative clause is and has also stated that the prefatory clause doesn’t limit the operative clause.

So the question then becomes what does “The right of the People to keep and bear Arms” mean? Again the court has answered us.

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 people”). 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.

The supreme court has stated clearly that the right belongs to the individual. “The right of the people” is not limited by the prefatory clause nor is it restricted to by any other qualification. It is every individual.

So what is it that the people have a right to? Something to do with arms.

The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (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.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

Here the court again explicitly states that arms are weapons of any sort. Knives, swords, rocks, clubs and of course guns are all “Arms”. It also includes defensive equipment such as armour. So the second amendment not only guarantees the people the right to firearms, it also guarantees the people the right to body armor (and any other type of armor).

The only restriction in the Heller decision is that the people be able to “take into his hands” and that is not well defined.

The court also explicitly states that “Arms” are not limited to what was available in the 18th century.

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, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), 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 court then addresses what it means to “keep arms”.

We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

The court, in their opinion, explicitly states that requirements on how the people keep their arms is unconstitutional. The struck down D.C.’s restrictions requiring trigger locks and other such “safe storage” infringements.

So what about “to bear arms”? What does that mean, again the court has answered.

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

Further the court says that to bear arms does not mean “in the military/militia”

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petition ers and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

What is the government enjoined from doing:

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. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

From this it is clear that every part of the second amendment has been analyzed and defined by the Supreme Court. The inferior courts of the United States don’t get to reinterpret what the words mean, they have been told what the words mean.

The above quotes are from the Heller opinion: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

This opinion was followed by the McDonald opinion. The problem was that immediately after Heller the people tried to exercise their rights and were thwarted by the States refusing to issue permission slips.

The States argued that Heller “…that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States…”

This is where the Fourteenth Amendment comes into play for the first time. In McDonald the court said: Yes! The second amendment applies to the states as well as all other political subdivisions!

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related actions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases—United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535— which were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.
— CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

The court has defined what the words mean, has said that it applies to the Federal, State and Local governments. Because of this the infringers moved to a different tactic. They finally acknowledged that the second amendment was an individual right and that their gun control laws were infringements but they claimed that because Heller allowed for some restrictions on the right, that the courts needed to find a balance between the right of the people and the needs of the governementgovernment.

This was often labeled “means-end”. The idea being that the larger the infringement the more tightly tailored the law had to be to the asserted government need. If it was a “small infringement”, say limiting the number of firearms a person could buy in a given period of time, the solution the government asserted could be broad. On the other hand if the infringement was greater, say limiting your right to have a gun within your home, then the solution the government asserted needed to be tightly tailored.

The problem with this was that any court that wanted a law to pass muster need only pick the right place on that scale to get the result the government wanted. They would define stringent laws such as a magazine ban or an assault weapon ban as being a small infringement so the government’s broad brush was allowed. If on the other hand the infringement encroached on the “core second amendment right” the courts would agree with the government’s assertion that the law was tightly tailored.

The actual argument in NYSR&PA v. Bruen isn’t really all that important. What was important was the court’s opinion.

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.
— NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Here the court states clearly that means-end is not acceptable. Only “…which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text as informed by history.”

This is the where the weasels start weaseling over words. What history? If you want history how about the century from 1911 when New York passed the Sullivan Act? That’s history. How about all of the gun control laws passed post 1865? That’s over 150 years of history.

Thomas addressed that.

…To do so, respondents appeal to a variety of historical sources from the late 1200s to the early 1900s. But when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635. The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; the Fourteenth in 1868. Historical evidence that long predates or post-dates either time may not illuminate the scope of the right. With these principles in mind, the Court concludes that respondents have failed to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New York’s proper-cause requirement. Pp. 24–62.
— Bruen

Here is where we run into the problem. The court’s opinion says “The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; the Fourteenth in 1868.” This puts both dates at the same level. Thomas then says that historical evidence that long predates or post-dates either time are not useful in finding analogise gun control laws.

We want the date of importance to be 1791 when the people voted and decided on ratifying the second amendment. They knew what it meant at that moment in time. We know have a damn good idea what it meant. We also know what gun control laws existed at that time. Almost none.

But in 19681868, just past the end of the Civil War, there were a lot of gun control laws being passed. These laws were almost always designed to be either a part of the “Black Code”, “Jim Crow”, or retaliation on the men that fought with the Confederacy.

There is clear indications that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was not about reinterpreting the bill of rights but instead on imposing the limits on the States.

Gun grabbers are desperate to get the courts to pull in laws from the late 1800s and early 1900s to allow them to infringe on the 2nd.

Finally, the court has stated that the second amendment does not grant the people any rights.

As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ….”
— D.C. v Heller

UPDATE: Corrected 1968 to 1868, removed space from block quote, removed word.

SCOTUSBlog is a good resource for people following supreme court cases. Even before cert. is granted.

Unfortunately that doesn’t mean that they always present good articles.

After researching and writing my previous article I found a link to this article:
Cherry-picked history and ideology-driven outcomes: Bruen’s originalist distortions

The author argues from a position of authority. His article is full of statements given as fact that are just opinion.

The majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen invokes the authority of history but presents a version of the past that is little more than an ideological fantasy, much of it invented by gun-rights advocates and their libertarian allies in the legal academy with the express purpose of bolstering litigation such as Bruen. Rather than applying a history, text, and tradition approach, it would be more accurate to characterize Justice Clarence Thomas’ decision as an illustration of the current Supreme Court’s new interpretive model: “Fiction, Fantasy, and Mythology.” Indeed, the distortion of the historical record, misreading of evidence, and dismissal of facts that don’t fit the gun-rights narrative favored by Thomas are genuinely breathtaking in scope. Thomas has taken law-office history to a new low, even for the Supreme Court, a body whose special brand of “law chambers history” has prompted multiple critiques and been a source of amusement for generations of scholars and court watchers.

Then we get to his supporting arguments.

There were a lot of gun control infringements passed after the civil war and Thomas just ignored those. They were at the time of the passing of the 14th amendment and should count just as much as when the second was adopted in 1791.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many of these infringers go to laws that were part of the racist Jim Crow laws to prove that their current infringements should be allowed to stand.