The OK case

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2017, 02:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Despite not being a gun owner, I am in the camp that the current interpretation of an individual's right is the correct one for the time that we live in, but, yea, the Court's interpretation that it protect's the individual's right, not the States' right from the Federal government, is less than a decade old. The English Bill of Rights clearly defined a right to own guns separate from any discussion of a militia. The 2nd Amendment then purposely added that point of a militia. Older versions of it elaborate on the militia too. Of course, to me, this is a case where we need to stretch the meaning of it for today's time. 

If we're using the definition of judicial activism of merely "overturning laws and previous precedent" then obviously going back to an older precedent would be activism as you're overturning a newer one. One could make the argument that reversing activism is not itself activism but restraint. 

But if the Second was never interpreted as individual protection until a decade ago, then it is activism that turned it towards that. Whatever the English Bill or Rights said, it wasn't the judiciary that put the militia bit in there, it was the legislature. But you are correct, going back to the previous precedent now would be activism. I am just having my fun with people who are typically pro-individual right to bear arms and anti-judicial activism by pointing out a fault in their logic since "judicial activism" is not something either ideological side has a monopoly on benefiting from and its use is usually inappropriate when used. That is why I am using the very basic and broad definition for my posts.

Now I have explained it all and the fun has been ruined.