Everyone understands what it’s actually intended for. Many, including progressive federal judges, pretend to understand it in a way that it’s effectively nullified, I.e. “it’s only for state militias, which of course must follow federal orders according to the Supremacy Clause.” So essentially that it gives the government the right to have guns, which makes no sense as an item in the Bill of Rights. 😂
Ridiculous. They have no trouble understanding "gay" has shifted in meaning since the 1700s, but play dumb about "regulated" (disiplined) and "militia" (freeborn adult males).
That said, better than our courts here. Our Section 92 forbids restricting "commerce" between the states. Its not much of a right, but its something. COVID border closures were challenged on s92 grounds, but apparently "emergency" abrogates our Constitution...
Check out the dissenting opinion in the Heller case if you’re interested. Pretty wild that just less than half the justices joined in the “it protects the government’s guns, not yours” opinion.
Yup. Miller is even crazier
Oddbean new post about login | logout