The Second Amendment is poorly written (it doesn't make any argument that applies to modern society since the U.S now has a standing army.)
SCOTUS has been boringly consistent reaffirming the principle that the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence (
Cruikshank, Presser, Heller).
Contrary to the lies of Antonin Scalia, Heller overturned historical precedent which through legislation regulating gun ownership had established that the Second Amendment provided for ownership of 'arms' in the context of a militia, and did not establish an individual right to own a gun.
No,
Heller sustained / affirmed Supreme Court precedent,
Heller did invalidate lower federal court perversions that inserted the "militia right" and "state's right" in the federal system in 1942. SCOTUS never recognized any permutation of any collective right interpretation for the 2ndA. The two liberal dissenting Justices clear up this erroneous assault on the federal Constitution in the beginning of each's opinion.
Justice Breyer in his
Heller dissent lays out in a straightforward and legally cogent manner (which the other 3 liberal Justices concur):
"The Second Amendment says that: “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.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). . . . "
Breyer makes clear with his citation, "
See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting) . . . ", that on this singular point of law -- the 2nd Amendment recognizes and secures an "individual right" -- and the Court is united in this unanimous and unequivocal conclusion.
Heller makes clear the Supreme Court in all its precedents, and in the three separate opinions from all members of the Court on that June day of 2008,, all stand on the same premise and legal determination, that the 2nd Amendment recognizes and secures an "individual right".
Heller invalidated the legitimate concerns of those living and dying with gun violence and so does not strike a proper balance between competing rights.
SCOTUS has no interest in such puffery and there are no competing rights because there is no
enforceable right to be safe from crime in general and gun violence in particular.
Taking gun ownership out of the politica arena creates division in society.
Federally, gun ownership was
never in the political arena; the right of the people to keep and bear arms was excepted out of the powers granted to the federal government, first by such powers being non-existent in the body of the Constitution and then, redundantly, by formal, express prohibition the 2nd Amendment.
In the states, their laws were not a federal concern or bound by the 2ndA until the 14th Amendment and the right secured by the 2nd Amendment was not incorporated against state action until 2010 (
McDonald v Chicago).
Overturning Heller does not mean the Supreme Court bans guns, it means it leaves it up to the people through their legislatures rather than to five random lawyers.
Overturning what in
Heller? That the RKBA is a pre-existing individual right on par with our other original, retained, fundamental rights, thus the RKBA does not
in any manner depend on the words used to secure it?
All of the arguments used to overturn Roe V Wade are the same arguments to overturn Heller.
Well, that is both wrong and backwards. The penumbral rights theory is grounded in the nature of the rights secured in the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights (including the 2ndA/RKBA) because those rights represent a rational continuum of liberty (see Harlan's dissent in
Poe v Ullman, cited in
Griswold and elevated to the opinion of the Court in
Casey).
Using Harlan's foundational explanation of penumbral rights, if you want to recognize an interdependency between the right to abortion and the RKBA you should see that the mechanism to extinguish the right to privacy (
Griswold) and all the derivative rights, to contraception, abortion and the many facets of LGBTQ+ rights, is found in the Democrat's success in extinguishing the right to arms . . . If the right to arms can be cut out of the rational continuum of liberty, then the penumbral rights theory cannot be argued to exist, and the rights recognized and secured by it simply evaporate.
Any further decision of this Supreme Court to expand gun 'rights' shows this Court is nothing more than a hack, partisan right wing group.
The decision that we are waiting for,
NYSRPA v Bruen, if it does what I expect, will make leftist anti-gunner's heads explode. You will need your puppy therapy and crying rooms again.
.
