Gun Control & RKBA

To do what Stevens has done here --giving each word full effect-- is to run counter to boringly consistent (for going on 140 years) SCOTUS explanations of the nature of the right to arms*.

The right is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment thus is it not in any manner dependent upon anything in, or created by the Constitution for its existence.

This tenet extinguishes any consideration that the right is qualified by or conditioned upon "the militia" or a citizen's attachment to the militia (the organized state militia being a product of the Constitution.

Giving words "full effect" when in fact they have -no effect- is inventing an interpretation.



* Supreme Court, 1876: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: [quoting the 1876 case but exchanging the case specific language of the indictment for the familiar text of the 2nd Amendment] "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”


So, the only thing that can be taken away from a reading of the 2nd Amendment is that the 2nd Amendment declares that "it" shall not be infringed. The "it" is of course, is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Those are the only words that can legitimately be given "full effect".