+121

Until I declare stopping or changing that, from now on, I intend to, at least once every week, do a Google news search writing "Second Amendment Justice judge's last name" on everyone of the nine judges at the final court, looking for new material from them telling us what is holding them here. 

+120 (second amendment interpretation 86)

As if it is not enough that no argument was given for why should the meaning of "being" be extended beyond its direct status reference. Look at how in the section and article mentioned in the preceding post "being" was there from beginning to end of developing the Amendment. If it was just a form of expression why no attempt was made to change it? With all the effort put to express things, as shown in the changes in expressions mentioned in the preceding post, among other things, and with attention at the level of adding a comma or changing a semicolon to a comma, why no body said: Hey guys, somebody could confuse this "being" to mean that we are referring to only our status?
What also deserves a special mentioning in this regard is why would they worry about the government using the "religiously scrupulous" part but do not worry about "being" gets used by future governments to tell people this is not about your time if "being" was intended to mean "always"?   

+119 (second amendment interpretation 85)

Take a look at the section titled "Conflict and compromise in Congress.." in THIS article about the Second Amendment. It provides a valuable drafting history for the Amendment. When I first looked at the earlier versions of the Amendment I worried about how saying "being the best security" would weaken my argument that "the right of the people" refers to the right created by the reason given at the preceding part of the Amendment. But then I recognized how much, instead, the direction of the development of the Amendment supports my side. "being the best security" was changed to "being the security" which in turn was changed to "being necessary to the security", more and more to the direction that justifies that as a reason for a right to keep and bear arms.  

+118 (second amendment interpretation 84)

Continuing from post +116 

And don't forget that all that clarification did not come within in a Because a militia is.. form. Instead it came within the being form which, because it points at the object at the current time only, provides no continuity directly from the authority of the constitution. The continuity here is dependent on our judgment that the object is still in that status and therefore requires understanding the connections in that part in order to apply it.   

+117

Even if I had recognized how much the situation here is like those in stories of human sacrifice societies and had seen the Amendment and wanted to argue for its interpretation at the time of the Heller case in 2008, there is no way I could have imagined that the court would come up with the theory suggested in its opinion in order to take into account answering it.  

It may not be the only way, but this is one of the problems the method of preliminary view for court opinions I mentioned elsewhere could solve . I generally view this method for the benefit of judges. The fact that a judge is the final decider does not need to come at the cost of being in a position with a potential of significant lacking of information. Why should it be that a litigant gets all the input of the judge but not vice versa? That question becomes even more important considering how often the judge is the layman in the field of the litigant.        

+116 (second amendment interpretation 83)

I just noticed that in trying to answer the theory in the opinion of the court I dealt with the Amendment as if it did not say "to the security". So even just directly from this, how would the theory of the court stand? If the purpose of the Amendment does not include empowerment and it was not dependent on the existence of sufficient power, how would preserving the militia leads to security? Should one assume a magical connection to that in that "clarifying" part of the Amendment? The Amendment could have said "..necessary to a free state, the right.." or even just "..necessary, the right.." and that part could lead to ambiguation more than clarification if the purpose of the Amendment was as it could be according to the theory of the court. So how about missing as direct connection as that?  

+115

Continuing from the preceding post:

I would very much prefer to give higher credit to myself for differing here instead of saying that others are acting abnormally but unfortunately there is no way I can convince myself of that. The Second Amendment is a well defined expression and shouldn't have subjected to what it was subjected here. It is to me so much so that I honestly feel much less confidence in myself that even with exhausting effort I can prevent other than what I meant taking to something I may say. This is coming from a person who once tried to correct others for suggesting a problem with applying the Second Amendment here before seeing the Amendment which he had to drag himself to do despite how easy the task is because of how much he was not expecting it would worth the effort.
   

+114

I want to point out again that despite my discussion about interpreting the Second Amendment here, I am light years away from missing how the behavior of the court regarding this matter screams loudly psychological issue.

One could have seen that easily even through strong rationalization. So how about when the court does not show any ground for its position or reason for its difficulty here?

+113

An alternative theory to some of what is in the preceding post would be that the court simply wants to keep as much as possible only the level needed for the person in applying the Second Amendment until it finishes reviewing its position on interpreting it. In order to do that it has taken one general view across all kind of Arms for a risk (to others) to benefit evaluation. Therefore it may choose to grant a stun gun or knife case but may deny a case with similar arguments for guns.

+112

Although I haven't read the opinion of this court in reversing the Massachusetts stun gun restriction, I think that the writer HERE did not get it right. The effect of the Second Amendment on this court sounds like that scene from Star Wars where somebody kicks and gasps for air because of being lifted from his neck although you cant see how the other guy is doing that to him. However, its granting or not granting related cases may have much less to do with seeing or not seeing the actions of the other courts as a "slap in the face". While this court is taking time reviewing itself on the Second Amendment it may pause from applying its established rulings leaving the stage for lower courts to step in to fill the gap and do what they think their duty calls on them to do. But this pause by this court probably comes from the morality issue of the probability of its being wrong there and not just the probability of being wrong in itself. So when it sees that the continuity of its ruling is what is more on the moral side then it may use the path of continuity in applying its already established precedent until it gets changed. The same probability of being wrong that may have caused the court not to grant other Second Amendment cases until it decides on a position, could also be the reason to grant this case to reverse what was seen as an imbalanced position toward stun guns until that decision.  

By the way, how often does it happen that minority dissenting judges would continue those same dissents later on applying the ruling they had dissented its making for this writer to be wondering about its absence here? 

+111 (second amendment interpretation 81)

Even though it was not the main thing for understanding the Amendment, not understanding why "the right of the people" was used made me wonder about how that could fit as an expression for the right being recognized. The other side on the other hand apparently found it easier to jump the assumption of self sufficiency to go and look for other reasons for the existence of that right instead of ways of expressions justifying that use. More astonishingly, they did that despite how the combination with the preceding part would lead to a meaningless statement. For me, the guidance of the preceding part of the Amendment  made me far away from even thinking that others could have depended on the use of "right of the people" as the foundation for their interpretation of the Amendment. It was relatively very recently that I recognized  this as the position of the court after being confused for so long with describing "self-defense" in the opinion off the court as "central component of the right itself", by combining that foundation with the attempt implied in this description to make meaning of that foundation combined with preceding part of the Amendment.  

Anyway, even if we take finding no answer for the use of  "the right of the people" as justifying the creation of such a strange meaning, now that we see a very valid use for that expression by paying attention to the difference of when the right was recognized from when it existed, that difficulty in creating a meaning with the other view points us to the understanding just mentioned as the answer. As an analogy, assume a person being told to use the exit to go out while he is in a room where he cant see but walls and therefore interpreted  that some of the walls might be an exit. But then after he suddenly recognized the existence of a door, would he still continue  to have the exit through the walls as a probable interpretation?   

110

The word "fabrication", in the preceding post, might have been the wrong way to express the abnormality of the opinion of the court. In any case, its use there has nothing to do with intention and merely intended to express more rootless creation in contrast with over extending something.   

109

Although I have no desire to do it for a personal reason, I am thinking of calling myself the Second Amendment guy. Why? In order to counter this wide spread tendency for the Second Amendment to be taken for granted to give a right to have firearms. People very easily and without any hesitation or thinking use "I am pro Second Amendment" in order to convey that they are pro a right for firearms.      

Even though it is a minor thing relative to the continued effect of taking lives, the injustice inflicted on the makers of the Amendment with all the accusations and the reckless way what they said has been taken, could be enough by itself to make one to try to counter that.To begin with, if it is not already there, I do not know how much closer one can get to fabrication from interpretation than the Supreme Court here.