05-16-2019, 02:30 PM
(05-16-2019, 02:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We would definitely have to disagree, because the interpretation of this right has changed over the decades since its drafting. Its application has not been static as the courts have introduced different interpretations, even to the point at which Scalia's opinion in Heller still disagrees with you as it states that the right is not unlimited, meaning it can be infringed.
Yes, there is not a strict constitutional interpretation of the second and yes it has been interpreted differently throughout the years. What hasn't really changed, and was asserted by SCOTUS in the 1800's, is that the men capable of fighting are the militia referred to in the 2nd. A lot of the interpretation issues with the 2nd come from the differences in how English is sued from now compared to when it was written. For sintance "well regulated" meant, essentially, "in good working order".
Quote:It may very well seem black and white, but that's not the way our government looks at it. This is why these civil liberties are almost entirely rooted in judicial interpretation.
Even when they should not, agreed. There's simply no way to write any law that will cover all possible future developments.
