Don Cates, Monday lunch, made a persuasive case that the 2nd Amendment cannot mean what current Supreme Court jurisprudence seems to say: it's about the state militias, aka Nat Guard. Rather, he insists, its meaning is what it appears on its face: "keep and bear arms" gives INDIVIDUALS the un-infringable right to own and carry a gun, everywhere in the country.
The plain meaning, the original meaning and consistent reading of this amendment congruently with other contemporaneous amendments ("rights" refers to individuals, "powers" refers to states), he claims, ALL tend toward this understanding.
Can the Supreme Court persist in applying current precedent?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Also, it would be kind of redundant to have that interpretation as the national guard is specifically provided for in Article I. Although admittedly it is not guaranteed in that clause.
To answer your question, the Supreme Court clearly can persist in applying current precedent--it does have the ability to do so. But of course it is not right to do so.
Indeed, this raises an interesting question, in that this seems to be a case in which the Supreme Court is clearly wrong: are we, as citizens, bound to follow the Court's erroneous interpretation?
Post a Comment