Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

> It isn't ridiculous to question whether eighteenth century political and cultural standards should always apply to a 21st century state. The Constitution isn't holy writ.

The appeal to the text and original meaning of the Constitution is not about giving deference to 18th century attitudes over 21st century ones, it’s about resolving a dispute amongst two contemporary views. If everyone agreed that the framers were out to lunch on the 2A, it would be trivial to change it. But people don’t agree that the 2A is obsolete.

If you saw the word “arms” in a contract, would you think it was limited to a particular type of gun. If someone sells just automatic weapons, are they not an “arms dealer?” Like in a contract, if both sides agreed to change the word “arms” to something narrower, they could do it. But just like a contract, where the sides don’t agree, one is entitled to have the contract enforced as written.

View on HN

>But just like a contract, where the sides don’t agree, one is entitled to have the contract enforced as written.

Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Because if it doesn't, then the entitlement you're describing doesn't exist as far as it's concerned.

The Constitution is a law, and that’s how laws work. Either follow it or agree to change it. The Constitution has a whole provision explaining how to change it—that would be irrelevant if it contemplated people just ignoring it when they didn’t like the result.

One thing about how laws work, is that they only become facts on the ground, so to speak, in the interpretation.

Courts change the followed interpretation of law all the time without amending the written law.

Often the written law only gets amended when the difference between the definition on paper and the definition in common practice can no longer be bent any further, after decades of plain conflict in language.

> Courts change the followed interpretation of law all the time without amending the written law.

They should not do that either. That’s an usurpation of the legislature’s powers and an affront to democracy.

If you wanted them to stop, you'd have to change the law so as to disallow interpretation, as the law as written already codifies that the law can be critically interpreted by courts.

However I am not sure how that would even work, given the law is in language and language must be interpreted to elucidate meaning from it in the first place. Even if you fixed the first interpretation as sacrosanct, you would then have to interpret that interpretation each time.

'Arms', in the general sense, is up to and including nukes though.

Maybe. The Constitution protects the right of "people" to "keep and bear" (i.e. keep and carry) "arms." There is at least a textual basis for interpreting "arms" to exclude weapons (like nukes and attack aircraft) that are not ordinarily carried by individuals.

But note, at the time of the founding, it was perfectly legal for private citizens to own armed warships. These ships had dozens of cannons that could fire over a mile (thus sieging a city). Canons moreover could fire grapeshot, causing massive casualties to groups of people. These weapons were far more destructive than an AR-15.

There are backpack nukes specifically designed for individuals to carry, like the B-54. If your legal cutoff was 'designed for a single person to carry', they would be included as legal.

Then maybe backpack nukes are protected by the Second Amendment? The Constitution says what it says--"we don't like the result" is a reason to amend it, not ignore it. In any event, whether or not backpack nukes are "arms," AR-15's clearly are within the category denoted by the word "arms."

Can't really fault you on any of that. Also, I do appreciate that I am carping from the sidelines here as I am not living in the US, so whatever works for you. My intent is only in passing commentary, not in trying to tell people what to do. It just looks a bit risky from the outside, is all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com