ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
100% Positive
Analyzed from 1808 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#right#https#state#law#constitution#arms#bear#laws#militia#keep
Discussion (43 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
https://web.archive.org/web/20260310212334/https://fivethirt...
https://reason.com/2025/06/05/is-the-supreme-court-really-th...
It’s not a free-for-all, though. If the warrant is for a stolen car, the police can’t open up pill bottles during the search; they have to look in places where a stolen car could be hidden ( https://www.fletc.gov/audio/execution-search-warrant-i-mp3 , do a text search for “elephant”). And the things being seized have to be obvious contraband ( https://www.rothdavies.com/criminal-defense/frequently-asked... ).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten...
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/minnlrev/vol107/iss2/3/
This administration revoked an executive order from the previous administration ("EO 14074") providing for a National Law Enforcement Accountability Database. And so, for the time being, citizens and journalists are left to collect, aggregate, and disseminate this information until the next administration takes office.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/31/2022-11...
https://bjs.ojp.gov/national-law-enforcement-accountability-...
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2026/01/26/police_miscondu...
Obligatory "Don't Talk To The Police"
Video: https://archive.org/details/youtube-d-7o9xYp7eE
Paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119
HN Threads: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwa...
"Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome."
uh-huh. what provision in the Constitution authorizes this, exactly?
is there anything in contemporaneous writings (Federalist Papers, for example) where someone advocated that a reasonable separation of powers would be "Article 3 judges should have the power to send legislators to jail as a side-effect of ruling that a law is unconstitutional"?
you can argue about the 2nd Amendment all you want, that's one of the oldest pastimes on the internet. but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign.
> but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign
Ad hominem aside, this is equivalent to “We should have laws but they should be selectively meaningless”
Judges being able to throw people from other branches in jail would cause all kinds of other problems.
yeah, the consequences are that the law in question gets overturned.
you're not arguing for enforcing existing consequences, you're trying to make up a whole new set of consequences.
people get extremely emotional about the topic of firearms, so let's take what you're saying and apply it to a different context, and hopefully you can understand how ludicrous it is.
FDR signed an executive order [0] for internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. it was challenged in a case that went to the Supreme Court [1].
SCOTUS upheld that executive order as constitutional. but let's imagine it had gone the other way, and been struck down as unconstitutional.
with the "consequences" you're proposing, a decision striking down EO 9066 would also imply President FDR must go to jail, wouldn't it? after all, he violated the Constitution. that is an insane outcome - a 5-4 SCOTUS vote could send a President to jail?
the Constitution clearly lays out methods of punishing elected officials - impeachment and possible removal by Congress. in your zeal to defend one tiny sentence of the Constitution, you're inventing out of whole cloth a completely separate way of punishing elected officials, one which would itself be unconstitutional.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
You can't have a citizen's militia without an armed populace. If 'the people' don't have guns, you don't have a militia.
Why does everyone think that they are some kind of arm chair lawyer who magically knows the right way to read it, and everyone else is wrong?
As a country, we need to have a serious conversation about guns. This argument just makes noise and gets in the way of actually talking about the real issues.
The two real questions are:
1. what types of guns do we want people to be able to own - where do we as a society draw the line on what’s okay for people to have and what we want to keep in the domain of the government control. This is an incredibly difficult question, especially in a country that was founded in an armed revolution and also suffers mass shootings
2. Under what conditions do we remove someone’s right to own guns?
Let’s talk about that, not beating the wording horse to death for the millionth time.
It’s about the right.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State.
The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.
Absolutely not. The state and the federal government definitely keep the monopoly of violence: you can't kill someone you believe raped your wife, the government can (under due process but still).
Refusing the government to have the monopoly of violence would mean that other groups independent from the state can exert violence on their fellow American citizens. That's was obviously not the intent here…
Besides the freedom of the State means that its not subordinate to another State. Not that random people get to shoot at the duly elected State government.
if your answer is the National Guard, that is ahistorical, because the modern National Guard was created in 1903. [0]
the "militia", as it existed at the time the 2nd amendment was passed [1] was:
> each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted)
so if you really want to hang your hat on "the militia" then the 2nd Amendment means women and non-white people aren't allowed to own firearms, and men over 45 need a permit of some kind?
there's a lot of debate to be had about firearms laws, but grammatical nitpicking on this level is really kind of pointless. there is even debate about whether an extra comma changes the meaning [2].
another source you can look at is individual state constitutions. in my home state of Washington, for example [3]:
> The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
drafted in 1889, and could not state more plainly that it applies to individuals.
historically, it has always been an individual right. if you want to try to argue that modern firearms mean the right should be subject to more restrictions, go ahead. but don't try to rewrite history in the process.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#Second_Mi...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
3: https://leg.wa.gov/state-laws-and-rules/washington-state-con...
~ History of the United States Volume II - James Schouler 1880
> [T]he right ... to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, ... including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such States or districts without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.
~ Freedmen's Burea Act extension overriding presidential veto - Congress 1866
> The physique and the manly appearance of the American people seems to make them well suited for the military profession. The young people very early get used to traveling and toil. Hunting is the young men's chief pasttime. This not only strengthens them bodily but teaches them to handle guns and thus prepares them for the hardships of war. In addition to this every free man has a right to keep arms in his house and to use them when he wants.
~ America 1818-1820 - Baron Klinkowstrom
> The constitution of the United States contains a number of expres limitation upon the Federal legislative power. In addition to those contained in the first then Amendments relative to freedom of religion, speech, and press, the quartering of troops, the right of the people to assemble, to petition, to keep and bear arms, to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures...
~ Principles of the Constitutional Law of the United States (1917) - Westel Willoughby
> The provision in the federal constitution on the subject is; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
~ The United States Constitutional Manual (1845) - Mordecai M'Kinney
> I. Personal Rights of Individuals ... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
~ The Federal Government; it's officers and Their Duties (1871) ~ Ransom H. Gillet
> The constitution makes it the right, the laws make it the duty, of all citizens within certain ages, to bear arms.
~ Education in a Republic (1838) - Edward Everett
> A man may arm himself for a case of probable danger; he may do it with a view to no specific occurrence, and he may do it in self-defense. Who can object to it? The constitution guarantees to every man the right bear arms. No law takes it away, and none every can. The right of self-defense is an inherent one, given by God, to man. It is our own natural right, and, as Blackstone says, no human legislation can ever take it from us.
~ The Life of John J. Crittenden With Selections From His Correspondence and Speeches (US Rep, US Senator, US AG, Gov of KY) (1871) - Edited by His Daughter, Mrs. Capman Coleman
If you’re looking to send people to jail for violating the constitution, how about start with pretty much the entire current administration? That’ll show others that you’re speaking about honestly held beliefs.
Hell, why bring up blue states at all, given this took place in Texas?