I’ve seen this theory floated before that “the people” were only the adult white males.
It is true that in most states, the only persons who could vote were adult, male landowners.
But to be a “citizen” meant more then than just to be enfranchised.
No one in their right mind would argue that the sons and daughters and wives of the founders weren’t “citizens”.
If somebody wants to argue, fine. But don’t be deliberately skewing the meaning of words. Don’t be conveniently leaving out relevant passages.
And I’ve seen it over and over. Give him a couple days, he’ll be back spewing his bilge on another thread.
BTW, I read the transcripts of today’s oral arguments. Based on the questions, it looks to me like it will be very, very, very difficult to rule in any other way. I suspect the ruling will be that it is a personal right, but subject to some kind of reasonableness standard. (insane folks can’t have guns, that sort of thing)
Because as the court said, Congress already has plenary power over the militia. It doesn’t need to disarm the people. And the founders KNEW what they wrote. They KNEW WHAT IT MEANT THEN. And it means the same today.
Baloney. The sons and daughters and wives of the founders were citizens -- but they couldn't vote. The couldn't run for office. They couldn't hold land. They were simply along for the ride. They weren't citizens with full rights.
"The people" had full rights. They had ties to the country. They were the ones with something to lose. They were the ones who ran the country -- the rich white guys.
They comprised the Militia and it was their right to keep and bear arms that was protected by the second amendment and no one else's.
In 1792.
I don't see Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito signing on to a decision which establishes such a low threshold of scrutiny on a Constitutionally protected right. Kennedy would have to join the four commies to end up with such a majority decision. Better would be if they agree with the DC Circuit but Roberts might be unwilling if it is not necessary to decide the case.
I think it likely that the Supreme Court will rule that the handgun ban is unConstitutional under ANY level of scrutiny and therefor they need not decide at this time what level is appropriate.
Who could state that a handgun ban is "reasonable" when every uniformed law-enforcement officer in the nation carries such an arm and is only justified in using it in the defense of himself or others, or in some jurisdictions to stop a fleeing violent felon; the same criteria that apply to citizens who are not members of law enforcement.