It's actually astonishing that this comes from the 9th.
I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet but it really blows my mind.
Whole sections could be written by an Originalist.
Quote:
In short, the meaning of the Second Amendment is a matter not merely of
abstract dictionary definitions but also of historical practice.
|
Quote:
It begins with the pre-ratification “historical background
of the Second Amendment,” since “the Second Amendment . . . codified a preexisting
right.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 592 (emphasis omitted). Next, it turns to
whatever sources shed light on the “public understanding [of the Second
Amendment] in the period after its enactment or ratification,” see id. at 605–10,
such as nineteenth-century judicial interpretations and legal commentary.
|
Quote:
To arrive at
the original understanding of the right, “we are guided by the principle that ‘[t]he
Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases
were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning,”
unless evidence suggests that the language was used idiomatically.
|
“
Quote:
Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even
future judges think that scope too broad.”
|
To be sure, those are mostly quotes taken by the 9th from the Heller decision but the idea that the 9th would take them so simply and directly, given their rather extremist past decisions is... remarkable.