What the Supreme Court Keeps Getting Wrong About the Meaning of a ‘Well Regulated Militia’

日本 ニュース ニュース

What the Supreme Court Keeps Getting Wrong About the Meaning of a ‘Well Regulated Militia’
日本 最新ニュース,日本 見出し
  • 📰 TIME
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 67 sec. here
  • 3 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 30%
  • Publisher: 53%

Gun safety advocates rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court before during oral arguments in a Second Amendment on Dec. 2, 2019 in Washington, D.C.

whether a drug dealer in Texas with a history of armed violence is entitled to own a gun under the Second Amendment.is the latest in a series of cases that have transformed the legalities of gun ownership in America. Beginning within 2008, the Court has interpreted a phrase long-understood as protecting the state militias as conferring a personal right to own a gun. It was, wrote Justice Paul Stevens in awas just the start.

Keeping the peace was the first duty of government, and a well-regulated militia was the appointed means—no small matter, in an age before professional police forces. It was the work of the militias, wrote one of the most eloquent advocates of the Second Amendment, “to provide for the protection and defense of the citizen against the hand of private violence, and the wrongs done or attempted by individuals to each other.

The right to keep and bear arms, then, was the antithesis of the modern concept of an individual entitlement. The right enshrined by the Second Amendment was the right of the states to provide protection against domestic and foreign violence for all members of the community. It had nothing to do with individual gun rights — except to protect people from those who would claim such prerogatives. And for most of America’s history, this precept was well understood.

The point was made even more sharply in Texas, where gun toting Confederate veterans unleashed a wave of terror in the decade after the Civil War. The world had seen too much blood shed in “the name of natural or personal liberty,” declared the state Supreme Court in 1872. This wild and dangerous freedom, explained the judge, was “exchanged under the social compact of States, for civil liberty”—a very different animal.

このニュースをすぐに読めるように要約しました。ニュースに興味がある場合は、ここで全文を読むことができます。 続きを読む:

TIME /  🏆 93. in UK

日本 最新ニュース, 日本 見出し

Similar News:他のニュース ソースから収集した、これに似たニュース記事を読むこともできます。

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Some Domestic Abusers Can Have GunsSupreme Court to Decide Whether Some Domestic Abusers Can Have GunsThe United States Supreme Court.
続きを読む »

The UK Supreme Court cannot just decide that Scots are not sovereignThe UK Supreme Court cannot just decide that Scots are not sovereignAT long last, a letter in The National (Nov 4, from Andy Anderson in Ardrossan) that covers the misdirection of those – and there are many of them…
続きを読む »

Helen Skelton tells why she keeps pictures of ex on social media sudden splitHelen Skelton tells why she keeps pictures of ex on social media sudden splitThe former Strictly Come Dancing star also opened up about being 'distraught' by the sudden end of their marriage
続きを読む »

BaByliss' £22 curling wand that 'keeps curls in for three days'BaByliss' £22 curling wand that 'keeps curls in for three days'The product has 30 different heat settings
続きを読む »

Courts latest news - Manchester Evening NewsCourts latest news - Manchester Evening NewsGreater Manchester court cases and proceedings are carried out across the region at Manchester Crown Court, Minshull Street Crown Court, Manchester and Salford Magistrates Court, and magistrates courts in Stockport, Tameside, Bolton and Wigan
続きを読む »

Trump’s Combative Testimony in Fraud Trial Spurs Reprimands From JudgeTrump’s Combative Testimony in Fraud Trial Spurs Reprimands From JudgeFormer President Donald Trump during a trial at New York State Supreme Court in New York, US, on Monday, Nov. 6, 2023.
続きを読む »



Render Time: 2025-03-31 17:14:43