Originally Posted by 1stmar
If its so clear cut then I guess there is nothing to be concerned about? So why all the threads? ALL laws are subject to interpretation, that's why we have a Supreme Court, to adjudicate rulings of lower courts because laws and rulings are subject to interpretation, not just mine but judges and justices.
Sadly, we have long since lost the ability to definitively interpret plain text. I discovered the phenomenon when I took a literature class in college and the whole premise was that none of the writing was actually endowed by it's author with meaning. It meant what it meant to us individually. I didn't realize at the time that generations had been taught to view the world from that perspective.
Laws should not be subject to interpretation. The question should be one a constitutionality. Laws should be clearly and concisely written. Should be, I say. I fully realize that they're not.
The 2A is not a "law" either. It is the standard by which laws are judged. It is one sentence. It is not vague or conditional. It is not open to interpretation. The SCOTUS has now definitively concluded, not that it should take such a decision, that the prefatory clause is not and never has been the singular purpose. Well, says I, DUH! Common sense. Never has been, never should have been, is not the only purpose.
Just like my example with the cookies. It doesn't have to include every possible scenario to be all inclusive. The meaning is clear.
The cookies are mine and you keep your paws off. I'll do with them as I please.
So, if the prefatory clause is not the only purpose, then the clause that matters, the defining statement is:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
How much clearer could it be?
Now, here is where I might diverge from some other folks, because I do not believe that the relatively modern doctrine of Incorporation is actually correct.
The states have their own constitutions. If the COTUS was meant to apply to the states it would be all we needed. It wasn't and isn't meant to apply to the states.
Court battles over states laws should be fought based on the state constitution. Virtually every state (if not every) has their own version of the 2A either in the text proper of the document or in it's own version of a Bill of Rights.
We'd solve a lot of problems is we got just a couple of concepts right.
In this instance, the application is simple. The 2A applies to National level gun laws. The 2A is an "inalienable right". Inalienable rights can only be infringed under very specific, very restricted circumstances. Almost all, and certainly all existing, gun laws are unconstitutional on a National level.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.