The Historical Record is the Correct Way to Understand the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

AmmoLand ^ | June 13, 2023 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In the recent series of direct Supreme Court opinions on what rights the Second Amendment protects, the Court laid out a brilliant exposition of what the words of the Second Amendment mean and how to use the meaning of the Second Amendment in judging the law. Those cases started with Heller, continued with McDonald, with more in Caetano, and most recently with Bruen.  Earlier decisions talked about the Second Amendment without ruling on it directly at the Supreme Court. The famous Miller decision from 1939 is muddy and does not give a definitive interpretation.

Justice Thomas of the Supreme Court is an originalist and a textualist. This means he judges the law by the text of the Constitution instead of determining what results he desires or what he thinks is the best policy for the country.  Progressive judges do not do this. They look to the results they wish, then work to find out a way to justify those results.  The idea of a “living constitution,” in essence, means no effective Constitution.

The Constitution is a contract between the Federal Government, the People, and the States. It specifies and arranges the political power structure of the Republic. It is detailed and easily understandable by people of ordinary intelligence. The writers of the Constitution understood political philosophy and the nature of man extremely well, much better than most contemporary politicians.

The modern Progressive movement arose in the 1890s, pushed by those who wanted more power to make national laws they believed to be necessary. Many desired to make the nation stronger, to “right wrongs,” and “do good.” They may have meant to be benevolent rulers, but they meant to rule. They despised the restrictions placed on their ambitions by the structure of the Constitution and the Bill

[smokingfrog]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html