When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

[M14 Shooter]

v Bruen:
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. BRUEN
In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.

Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

The burden is now on the state to demonstrate the regulation they want does not violate the plain text of the 2nd Amendment, in terms of the historical tradition of firearm regulation.across the US.
The rejection of means-end scrutiny -- intermediate and strict scrutiny -- is a powerful move.

 

[Rigby5]

Since the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to codify the fact government is inherently abusive and dangerous, then it is inherently dangerous to let government restrict firearms at all, in any way.
And the larger and more distant the government, the more inherently dangerous and corrupt.
So any gun laws at all should be local, not state or federal.
Which makes obvious sense, because you have different gun needs on a farm or wilderness, than in a large urban environment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Since the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to codify the fact government is inherently abusive and dangerous, then it is inherently dangerous to let government restrict firearms at all, in any way.
And the larger and more distant the government, the more inherently dangerous and corrupt.
So any gun laws at all should be local, not state or federal.
Which makes obvious sense, because you have different gun needs on a farm or wilderness, than in a large urban environment.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense unconnected with militia service – not to ‘deter’ a government subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes insurrectionist dogma.

Moreover, all lawmaking entities have the authority to enact firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local, provided such measures are consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.