New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has issued an emergency public health order temporarily suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County.
At the time the constitution was passed, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government. The Second Amendment basically is saying “Hey, if the Feds were to regulate guns, then States couldn’t form militias and the country would be undefended because there’s no standing army. So we recognize a right to own guns at a Federal level. What States do, OTOH, is up to them.”
And this might have been fine, if antiquated quickly given it didn’t take long for everyone to realize State Militias were a dumb idea and the US needed an Army, but for the fact that the States didn’t get on, the South was basically made up of Slavery imposing tyrannies, and the end result was a civil war (which wasn’t very civil, despite the name.)
And in the aftermath of that war, the 14th Amendment imposed the bill of rights on all the states. So now the states also can’t interfere with the “right” to own guns, despite it never being the founder’s intent that the right be recognized on any level other than Federal.
So, that’s why those words are there. It’s a “Hey, this might sound really weird if we don’t give some context, so here’s some context” preamble. And unfortunately, as such, is meaningless, especially since the 14th didn’t make an exception for it (they really should have done.)
Let me try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it’s ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn’t written to restrict the rights of the people.
The prefatory clause is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…,” which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you’re blue in the face about how “well regulated militia” was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it’s not part of the operative clause.
“… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It’s hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don’t want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it’s intuitive.
Is part of the dependent clause. Its reasoning.
If you paid attention in English class youd know this
Just a flourish of words that dont matter?
They set context at the time.
At the time the constitution was passed, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government. The Second Amendment basically is saying “Hey, if the Feds were to regulate guns, then States couldn’t form militias and the country would be undefended because there’s no standing army. So we recognize a right to own guns at a Federal level. What States do, OTOH, is up to them.”
And this might have been fine, if antiquated quickly given it didn’t take long for everyone to realize State Militias were a dumb idea and the US needed an Army, but for the fact that the States didn’t get on, the South was basically made up of Slavery imposing tyrannies, and the end result was a civil war (which wasn’t very civil, despite the name.)
And in the aftermath of that war, the 14th Amendment imposed the bill of rights on all the states. So now the states also can’t interfere with the “right” to own guns, despite it never being the founder’s intent that the right be recognized on any level other than Federal.
So, that’s why those words are there. It’s a “Hey, this might sound really weird if we don’t give some context, so here’s some context” preamble. And unfortunately, as such, is meaningless, especially since the 14th didn’t make an exception for it (they really should have done.)
Yes, actually.
How convenient, the words that dont matter are the ones you dont want to matter
Let me try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it’s ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn’t written to restrict the rights of the people.
The prefatory clause is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…,” which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you’re blue in the face about how “well regulated militia” was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it’s not part of the operative clause.
“… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It’s hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don’t want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it’s intuitive.
Its still not empty words, it is intent, which we supposedly have a history of using when interpreting the constitution for modern cases.
I dont think America is the place to be if you dont want to get shot. Did you write this thinking we have a good track record or something?
I didn’t say it was “empty words,” I said it was immaterial, as in, from a legal standpoint.