Aguila Blanca
Staff
Stephen Halbrook, one of the nation's most respected Second Amendment scholars, has written an article explaining why the scope and meaning of the 2A must be construed according to what the people who originally wrote it thought it meant, in 1791.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/1...nt-alter-the-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/
The basis of his line of thinking is that the fourteenth amendment, which was adopted in 1868, didn't add anything to, take anything away from, or modify in any way the Second Amendment (or any of the fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights). The purpose of the 14th Amendment was, according to Halbrook, "to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."
The article puts those words inside quotation marks, which suggests that Halbrook is actually quoting someone or something from the discussion around adopting the 14th Amendment, but there's no footnote so I can't tell you who said or wrote that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/1...nt-alter-the-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/
The basis of his line of thinking is that the fourteenth amendment, which was adopted in 1868, didn't add anything to, take anything away from, or modify in any way the Second Amendment (or any of the fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights). The purpose of the 14th Amendment was, according to Halbrook, "to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."
The article puts those words inside quotation marks, which suggests that Halbrook is actually quoting someone or something from the discussion around adopting the 14th Amendment, but there's no footnote so I can't tell you who said or wrote that.