Ok buddy, let's just put this one down.
https://content.law.virginia.edu/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm
From Antonin Scalia's mouth to your ears. If I don't know what legal authority is, then he damn sure didn't. My whole point (yet again), is that he interpreted this in a favorable manner instead of considering the more recent (respectively) discussions of the founders and their intentions when ratifying the Constitution. Had he actually done so, he would have ruled the other way, as there's plenty of evidence illustrating the purpose of the militia from the actual framers.
But please, keep preaching to me about legal authority, I don't know any better, I just took Scalia's words at face value. Muh legal authority am I right?
<puh-lease75>
You can use history to explain your reasoning or push your argument. It's actually pretty common because it gives a backstory and adds context. But you can't base your ruling on a random history paper.
Scalia discussed the history, but these were the authorities he leaned on to back his ruling:
- US Constitution
- SCOTUS caselaw
Other sources were discussed but not for purposes of citing authority (because they didn't carry any or enough)
What was the issue that turned the case and what reasoning did Scalia use to arrive at his holding?
Imma grab dinner so you can take some time trying to answer
https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/bill-of-rights/images/handout-2.pdf
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
False claims, this fucking guy.
That is a rule, not an issue or holding or reasoning. And it's not the 2nd A
The key issue had already been discussed itt: whether the 2nd A prefatory clause limits the scope of the operative clause. In other words, is the militia component a requirement for the right to own a gun. Specifically, a handgun kept at home for the purpose of self-defense
Scalia held that the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause. A purpose for a right is not necessarily a requirement for a right.
His reasoning was based on the SCOTUS' standard of scrutiny regarding enumerated Constitutional rights. It's a very high standard. In a matter involving the right to defend one's own life, the importance of Constitutional protection is most acute. There's limits to rights, but gov cannot prohibit the right to lawfully defend yourself in your own home. This principle is supported by the language of the 2nd A, SCOTUS caselaw, common law tradition predating the US, state constitutional gun rights which preceded and followed the 2nd A, and consensus general legal interpretation of the 2nd A since it was ratified. All supported the concept of an individual's right to bear arms.
But prior history aside, it really comes down to a logical analysis of the explicit language. A stated purpose for a right does not limit that right unless it specifically says it does. This is objective logic.
And so this is why I've been grilling you on this. The theory that the US allowed states to form militias in order to suppress slave revolts may or may not be true, but in any case it doesn't matter here. This case is about individual gun rights ABSENT the militia component.
Anyways I've spent too much time on this and there's really not much left to say so I will now officially bow out. And look tbh, assuming you don't have Westlaw or LexisNexis access, you shouldn't be expected to know all of this shit. But I simply couldn't ignore your initial haymakers lol
