What is this statement saying?

[John Dule]

Then why did you change "bear" to "own" in your hypothetical? Bearing and owning do not have the same literal meaning, after all, and if we are talking about firearms that distinction may become important. Do you have concrete evidence for why "bear" should be synonymous with "own"?

No-- but then again, I don't have any evidence as to why cows should be synonymous with guns either.

All I am observing here is that your underlying claim — that the Second Amendment is an unambiguous statement that allows for only your interpretation to prevail — relies on your particular subjective definition of each term and how they function together. There is no reason to presume that your interpretation of the language is correct. The definition of the word "bear", which you see as conferring an individual right to carry firearms, is one of many examples where you are relying on your interpretation to foreclose other readings of the text.

Then what is preventing us from "reinterpreting" every single word to mean a completely different thing?

[Donerail]

All I am observing here is that your underlying claim — that the Second Amendment is an unambiguous statement that allows for only your interpretation to prevail — relies on your particular subjective definition of each term and how they function together. There is no reason to presume that your interpretation of the language is correct. The definition of the word "bear", which you see as conferring an individual right to carry firearms, is one of many examples where you are relying on your interpretation to foreclose other readings of the text.

Then what is preventing us from "reinterpreting" every single word to mean a completely different thing?

Stare decisis is the typical answer here — the point of obeying precedent is to give some stability and predictability to the whole apparatus. If a higher court has already decided what this word in this statute means, that stands as its definition, unless your case can be distinguished in some way.

But the truth is, there's really nothing in place to stop you from reinterpreting anything, so long as you can convince five justices to go along with it. One can torture language to find a right to privacy rooted in penumbras and emanations, just as one can torture language (and history) to decide that the Founders contemplated men "bearing arms" against rabbits and deer. All depends on how persuasive your arguments are and how they accord with the priors of the justices.

[Kingpoleon]

Then what is preventing us from "reinterpreting" every single word to mean a completely different thing?

A city actually has the constitutional power to restrict the possession of guns, though not the ownership of them. There is significant evidence that, in the time the Constitution was written, town folk did not keep their guns in their homes, but instead in a centralized arsenal, literally for the purpose of a city militia. So a right to bear arms, if taken not from textualism but from originalism, a philosophy based in context of that specific time, at least cities have the constitutional ability to so centralize weapons for the purpose of a city militia.

It’s unlikely any typical originalist would reach that conclusion, given the usual conservative bias, but it’s an example of the reason why libertarians have historically been a bit hesitant to support originalism. And most other judicial philosophies lack the emphasis on context to reach that conclusion.

[John Dule]

Then what is preventing us from "reinterpreting" every single word to mean a completely different thing?

A city actually has the constitutional power to restrict the possession of guns, though not the ownership of them. There is significant evidence that, in the time the Constitution was written, town folk did not keep their guns in their homes, but instead in a centralized arsenal, literally for the purpose of a city militia. So a right to bear arms, if taken not from textualism but from originalism, a philosophy based in context of that specific time, at least cities have the constitutional ability to so centralize weapons for the purpose of a city militia.

It’s unlikely any typical originalist would reach that conclusion, given the usual conservative bias, but it’s an example of the reason why libertarians have historically been a bit hesitant to support originalism. And most other judicial philosophies lack the emphasis on context to reach that conclusion.

I've actually heard this argument before, but I was under the impression that it only applied to the "bear" portion of the amendment. "Keep" still implies one's ability to have the firearms in one's own house.

[Kingpoleon]

I've actually heard this argument before, but I was under the impression that it only applied to the "bear" portion of the amendment. "Keep" still implies one's ability to have the firearms in one's own house.

That’s a textualist commentary on an originalist idea. 

The central point is that the individual’s ability to bear arms is contingent upon it being for the force of a well regulated militia, such as one with a central armory. This particularly makes sense when we remember the Patriots largely organized around city militia and armories, which the British government sought to reduce to an individual bearing arms.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

I love how people always forget the second and third words of the second amendment. Can people bear firearms? Sure. If yes, should they be regulated? Abso-f**kin'-lutely.

Also, for the record, you cannot kill people with a cow. Well, unless you're really good at domestication.

[John Dule]

I've actually heard this argument before, but I was under the impression that it only applied to the "bear" portion of the amendment. "Keep" still implies one's ability to have the firearms in one's own house.

That’s a textualist commentary on an originalist idea. 

The central point is that the individual’s ability to bear arms is contingent upon it being for the force of a well regulated militia, such as one with a central armory. This particularly makes sense when we remember the Patriots largely organized around city militia and armories, which the British government sought to reduce to an individual bearing arms.

The founders deliberately chose wording that unambiguously states that the ownership of arms is not contingent upon militia membership. I find it hard to believe that originalist or textualist arguments could be made otherwise.

I love how people always forget the second and third words of the second amendment. Can people bear firearms? Sure. If yes, should they be regulated? Abso-f**kin'-lutely.

Also, for the record, you cannot kill people with a cow. Well, unless you're really good at domestication.

The second and third words of the amendment refer to the militia, not to firearms. This thread is not about what you think the law "should" say; rather, it is about the actual meaning of the text. Your extension of the cow analogy is thus irrelevant.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

I've actually heard this argument before, but I was under the impression that it only applied to the "bear" portion of the amendment. "Keep" still implies one's ability to have the firearms in one's own house.

That’s a textualist commentary on an originalist idea.  

The central point is that the individual’s ability to bear arms is contingent upon it being for the force of a well regulated militia, such as one with a central armory. This particularly makes sense when we remember the Patriots largely organized around city militia and armories, which the British government sought to reduce to an individual bearing arms.

The founders deliberately chose wording that unambiguously states that the ownership of arms is not contingent upon militia membership. I find it hard to believe that originalist or textualist arguments could be made otherwise.

I love how people always forget the second and third words of the second amendment. Can people bear firearms? Sure. If yes, should they be regulated? Abso-f**kin'-lutely.

Also, for the record, you cannot kill people with a cow. Well, unless you're really good at domestication.

The second and third words of the amendment refer to the militia, not to firearms. This thread is not about what you think the law "should" say; rather, it is about the actual meaning of the text. Your extension of the cow analogy is thus irrelevant.
[/quote]

Then that means that it's the complete and total right of the government to take the arms away from anyone who isn't a member of a militia.

Also, I wanna take this moment to ask what the hell a 'well regulated militia' counts as. I really hate law that uses terms like that, it's not very explicit in my opinion.

[Alcibiades]

The 2nd Amendment only makes grammatical sense if there is just one comma, in between “State” and “the right”. This does then imply that people have the right to keep and bear arms, with a well-regulated militia for the security of the State being just one reason. Now, I think the 2nd Amendment is completely unfit for purpose in the modern world, but using a textualist interpretation, it clearly says that there is a right to keep and bear arms regardless of whether or not you are in a well-regulated militia.

[Good Habit]

"A glass of milk, being necessary for a balanced breakfast, the right of the people to keep and own cows, shall not be infringed."

Coming late to the party..

but this is obviously a false analogy... "A well regulated militia" is an organisation - while a "balanced breakfast" is just an individual joice.

If your proposal would be worded: "A well regulated and prosperous dairy industry, being essential to a balanced nutrition of the population, the right of the people to keep and own cows, shall not be infringed", then we could easily interpret it as just a safeguard against animal right groups or veganism, that might try to ban the "exploitation of cows".

OTOH, if we go for literal interpretation, a "balanced breakfast" -requiring fresh milk, the second part should then clearly mean that not only is everone encouraged to keep a cow in the backyard of his house, but it would be clearly illegal to ban cows from spare bedrooms in your condo or rented city appartement or from being brought to a hotel room.

And if you want to argue that the right to bear arms should be interpreted individualy (and not for "the people" as a group), this could have been worded clearer, say like: "Personal vigilance,being necessary to protect life and property against rampant crime, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

With such a wording,the indivualist interpretation should clearly prevail.

But AFAIK, the founders were clearly suspicous of permanent establishements like nobility, a standing army, a professional judicary and probably professional law enforcement as well, and therefore insisted on trial by grand jury and put emphasis on the Militia part (to defend freedom against abuse of power) - both a Jury and a Militia are  non professional institutions of ordinary citizens.

So,IMO, a correct interpretation of the second would have been that: "the Minneapolis Chapter of the BLM Brotherhood Watch (or whatever they might call their Militia ATL)has the constitutional duty to defend their brother George Floyd against the criminal organisation called the "Minneapolis police departement".

[John Dule]

Then that means that it's the complete and total right of the government to take the arms away from anyone who isn't a member of a militia.

Not even close. Please read the statement again, this time paying close attention to detail.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Then that means that it's the complete and total right of the government to take the arms away from anyone who isn't a member of a militia.

Not even close. Please read the statement again, this time paying close attention to detail.

This statement is not analogue with 2A though. A militia is not a glass of milk, and a gun is not a cow. Unless you care this much about agricultural diplomacy, I don't get how my interpretation of this text reflects my understanding of the constitution. If this text was more comparable to what's actually in the 2nd amendment, then I'd understand, but we're dealing with apples and oranges here.

[Kingpoleon]

The founders deliberately chose wording that unambiguously states that the ownership of arms is not contingent upon militia membership. I find it hard to believe that originalist or textualist arguments could be made otherwise.

It is not contingent upon “militia membership” in the modern sense because that was not practiced at the time. The primary purpose of owning arms, outside of rural settings, is the joint defense of a town. As such, a law that restricts either firearms or ammunition to being held in a general town armory could not be unconstitutional, because such laws were practiced at the time the Constitution was brought into force and afterwards.