That the antis have glommed onto “self-defense” as an exclusionary qualifier was inevitable since that’s all the “common possessors” on our side ever talk about.
If we keep limiting ourselves that way, arms needed for the core purpose and all new technological developments restricted to military/police use will be forever denied to the people the Second Amendment was meant to apply to, and not just for “self-defense.”
I’m waiting for one of our legal influencers with a reach longer than mine to admit this and start using it.
Alternatively, I’m waiting for one of them to have the guts to challenge me on this and prove me wrong.
[Via Jess]
I’m going to suggest that we follow a few hints. One from Bruen that suggests we should investigate just exactly what the Founders meant by that phrase “well regulated militia”, and another from, of all people, V. P. Kamala Harris who puts such importance on “root causes.” In other words, why were the Anti-Federalists so adamant that language lifted from the state constitutions be added in the form of a bill of rights to the new federal constitution and if that wasn’t possible, that the entire project of a new national government be thrown in the trash?
In the usage of the day, something was regarded as “well regulated” if it was set up in such a way as to be able to fulfill its intended purpose. So what was the intended purpose of the militia? A pamphlet written by Josiah Quincy II, one of the Sons of Liberty, in 1774 gives a pretty clear cut description.
https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/2598
“No free government was ever founded or ever preserved it’s liberty without uniting the characters of citizen and soldier in those destined for defence of the state. The sword should never be in the hands of any, but those who have an interest in the safety of the community, who fight for their religion and their offspring
;—and repell invaders that they may return to their private affairs and the enjoyment of freedom and good order. Such are a well regulated militia composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
Quincy’s concept of a “well regulated militia” was fleshed out and included in the various colonial and state militia laws. It was to be a body of men drawn from the community at large, trained in the military arts, lead by men chosen by them from among their own ranks, and capable of taking to the field with their own arms and provisions at need, to defend themselves, their families, and their communities against invasions, uprisings, insurrections, and attempts by their own government to prevent them from exercising their creator endowed rights.
So self defense IS part of the core purposeof the Second Amendment and the well regulated militia it mentions, but in a broader sense. It doesn’t just include self defense from street thugs. it also includes defense of the community from the likes of BLM, and ultimately self defense of the community at large from the predations of government agencies, such as BATFE, who have intentions of running roughshod over the peoples’ creator endowed rights.
The antis have not just glommed onto “self-defense”.
They also claim — in court, no less — that defensive firearms are not “in use” unless actually fired, and that “large-capacity magazines” are not “in use” unless more than 10 rounds are fired, regardless of what kind of magazine is actually inserted into the gun.
It’s an interesting argument because taken to its logical conclusion, if a “large-capacity magazine” is only “in use” if more than 10 rounds are fired, then a firearm which is only fired, say, six times before reloading CANNOT have had a “large-capacity magazine” “in use”. Thus, a 16-round magazine from which fewer than 10 rounds are fired is NOT a “large-capacity magazine”.