(07-07-2022 07:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 06:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 06:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't understand why the anti-gun lobby doesn't just pass an amendment to the Constitution.

lots of things have been corrected that way. If y'all think the Second Amendment is wrong or out of date, that is the proper way to go about it, not asking Justices to ignore what is written.

In terms of ignoring what is written... I stand by the idea that the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted in a way that allows for certain gun control measures. It was interpreted in that way in this country for a very long time. Heller interpreted it in a different way, and clearly this interpretation is favored by many here ("A well-regulated militia" is basically meaningless fluff). Supreme Court justices are not gods though and there is room for nuance and disagreement. There always has been.

Prior to Heller there had been one, that's right one, case that defined the bounds of the 2nd amendment. In 1934. That is 76 years prior to Heller. That is roughly about the same time that a Supreme Court said it is okay and proper to mass incarcerate and mass relocate people for simply being Japanese. And, at that time, the same era Court had zero problem affirming Plessy v Ferguson.

One might just surmise that maybe many of the rulings from them were done in a 'policy first' fashion.

So no, it, for all intents and purposes, had *never* been interpreted until 1934, and not even once since then.

So quit with the "[i]t was interpreted in that way in this country for a very long time" spiel.

Had there just been no cases brought in front of the court between those times?

If so, it seems strange that no one felt compelled to try a case against the various gun control laws that had been in effect during that period.