Hacker News Reader

Comment by deathgrips | Hacker News Reader

I have a different perspective. I think that the scope of the 2nd amendment has narrowed over the years. In 1776, private citizens owned every kind and sort of weapon used by the military. Ordinary people owned cannons, were instructed to put cannons on their private ships to defend against pirates, and owned the same sorts of muskets used by the army. The modern equivalent would be buying tanks at Walmart for cash and not registering the purchase nor requiring a background check.

By the way, the archaic meaning of "regulated" means "properly disciplined and drilled". It did not refer to control or supervision by a state.

View on HN

> By the way, the archaic meaning of "regulated" means "properly disciplined and drilled". It did not refer to control or supervision by a state.

That still leaves open the question of what levels of discipline and drilling the (federal or state) government could demand of someone for them to be included in the Militia.

It is already accepted that felons and the mentally ill may be prevented from exercising 2nd Amendment rights, so it is perhaps not inconceivable that there could be minimum and maximum age limits, or minimum numbers of training / inspection days for people to be deemed validly part of the Militia.

Whether any such changes would reduce gun crimes, or increase crimes generally, or be politically viable or desirable, are separate questions.

The government cannot demand anything. The well-regulated part is a justification clause.

Imagine if the 2A said this: > "A well tailored suit, being necessary to a sharply dressed citizenry, the right of the people to keep and wear clothing, shall not be infringed."

Does this mean that the government now has a right to force dress codes on people so that their suits are well tailored?

Also justification clauses have been used in other contemporary laws too:

> Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences. (From NH Ex Post Facto Article)

Does this mean that ONLY when the ex-post facto laws are injurious, oppressive and unjust, should that law be unconstitutional according to the NH constitution?

Great points, thank you, but I think I still disagree.

In the absence of the 2A, the government would have the power to ban any weapon (using the same authority they have to ban weapons that are not covered by the 2A today). By contrast, under your proposed fictional constitution, there would be no underlying basis for the government to control clothing generally, so your 2A wouldn't expand or limit the sorts of clothing allowable.

As for your second point, I interpret the "justification clause" as saying that all retrospective laws are ...unjust, and that "No such laws" means "No retrospective laws". The hypothetical of a ...just ex-post facto law is ruled out by definition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com