Ooh, cherry picking from a Heller lawyer, I’m sure that’s unbiased.

edit: I liked the part where he mentions the first draft of the Virginia state constitution but not the final draft, but then omits the first draft of the US constitution. Delicious cherries.

Another one: The use of “bear arms” in an 18th century context almost always meant “in military service.” Scalia even acknowledges this, but says only when used in “bear arms against.”

But it doesn’t matter. Halbrook points out that the Pennsylvania declaration of independence says: “That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State.” Ok. Why is “in defense of themselves” a specifically enumerated right? Because the term “bear arms” doesn’t apply to self-defense otherwise.

And self-defense was not the point of the second amendment, the security of a free state was.

I guess it makes a lot of sense when you just ignore all counterfactual evidence.

It’s simple. For 220 years, this was not an individual, unlimited right. Then Scalia hand waved away two centuries of precedent and decided the text magically aligned with his activist agenda.

doesn’t mention national defense.

WTF do you think “necessary to the security of a free State” means?

It’s really clear in the Virginia Constitution what the point is:

" That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Where’s the link to the actual court filing?

Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country.

Wrong. American and from the south, no less. 0 points for you ad hominem attack.

1. That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment

Wrong again. The second amendment had nothing to do with gun control until the 20th century.

It was widely understood to be a collective right to provide for the national defense.

The NRA actually lobbied in favor of the 1934 NFA. Gangsters with street sweepers is not responsible gun ownership.

Just because you say something is illegal doesn’t make it so.

You need to read more.

That’s an interesting assertion - especially given the lack of actual criticism of his ruling and its arguments.

Really. He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism. He’s legislating from the bench.

You might want to revisit his provided statement on the matter - it wasn’t very ambiguous.

And you might want to link it. I just guessed.

Who wrote that, Benitez?

He’s making shit up and he knows it.

I’m sure you guys won’t complain if every magazine, optic and accessory is required to ship to an FFL for paperwork before getting to the customer. 'Cause they’re “arms” now, right?

Perhaps you’re not an American? Perhaps you don’t know the history of your own country?

From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.

Former chief justice Warren Burger called this out in 1991. That’s what conservatism used to look like. What you’re parroting is NRA propaganda. It’s unprecedented and it’s insane.

A piece of plastic is not an arm.

Doesn’t matter if it’s a 30 round magazine or a bump stock.

This idea that somehow the second amendment is unlimited is unprecedented and insane.

States rights!

Wait, no not like that.

Except that it’s already been used to keep Jan 6ers off the ballot.

It’s got teeth. How much? I dunno. But Trump doesn’t necessarily need to be disqualified for the party to step in and nominate someone else.

I think a lot of Republicans would welcome the excuse.