The OK case

[BmorePat87]

(04-05-2017, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You go with judicial activism had to be employed to make "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." an individual right.

Of course there is and has been debate, but I will share mine:

It pointed to the purpose and need of an armed citizenry and stated because of this need the Federal Government will not infringe the individual's right to own a weapon necessary for defense. Just because we currently don't need a civilian militia does not mean an individual no longer has the right to own a weapon.

What if we go to war with China and while doing so Mexico invades California. SSF decides to form a Militia to repel the invaders, he goes by Matt's house and says "Grab your weapon and follow me". Matt says I don't have one as I didn't have the individual right to own one.

You state it took/takes a lot of judicial activism to make it an individual right. I say all you have to do is read the sentence.

Like Matt said, the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." was viewed for nearly 200 years as a protection of the rights of the states to have an armed militia.

Most of us here are in agreement with the very recent precedent that it protects an individual's right to own a firearm, but that doesn't erase 200 years of judicial precedents. The reality is that it was an act of "judicial activism" to overturn that precedent and ignore the historical context of the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't make the current precedent any less legitimate.