The meaning of the Second Amendment (One Perspective)

[jimmy the one]

55. sharp & inept

eleanors: This is the U.S., not England.

You're sharp today, yet inept at the same time; .. scalia cited the english 'have arms' decree as being an individual right to self defense, that's the rub, for scalia misinterpreted the english bill of rights & misapplied it to the 2ndA. The english refute what scalia said, & claim their english 'have arms' decree conferred an individual right to belong to a militia, as I wrote previously.

the english:.. contrary to discredited scholarship {joyce malcolm} upon which Heller [decision] relied, the right to “have arms” embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or use arms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars (what, in modern times, we mean when we use the term “self-defense”). Rather, it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm.
.. The Supreme Court correctly found that the English right to “have arms” was an expression of the same right that has “long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment.”
.. Where the Court erred was by interpreting the quoted terms in a manner divorced from their historical context, reading “individual” to mean “private,” “defence” to mean “defense against harm by private individuals acting for private purposes” and equating “self-preservation” with the modern usage of the term “self-defense.” In doing so, the Court relied heavily on the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm. The overwhelming consensus among leading English historians, however, is that Malcolm’s work is flawed on this point.
.. The origins of [2ndA] in the English right to “have arms” demonstrate that this right of self-preservation/self-defense gives individuals the right to collectively defend their public interests against organized assault or tyranny.. .. Moreover, the right of “self-preservation” was to be exercised not by individuals acting privately or independently, but as a militia organized by their elected representatives, whether Parliament, the Boston Town Council, or otherwise...Contrary to Malcolm’s view, the “have arms” provision was the result of a political dispute over whether ultimate control over the militia..
.. Amici Curiae are scholars and professional historians whose collective expertise covers the following areas: the history of Stuart England, the Restoration, the 1689 Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the Early Republic, American legal history, American Constitutional history, and Anglo-American history. Each has earned one or more advanced degrees in history, political science and/or law. The depth of knowledge they bring to the Court’s inquiry..
I. THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD REEXAMINE PRIOR FINDINGS IN LIGHT OF SOUNDER SCHOLARSHIP WHEN INTERPRETING RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/cases/briefs/pdf/brief__08-1521__22.pdf