In a way, they are.
Again, this thread is demonstrating that the gun ‘debate’ has little to do with the Amendment or its case law.
That states are enacting measures unrelated to or not currently within the scope of the Second Amendment in accordance with the aspirational, political Second Amendment.
This "aspirational" 2ndA is nothing new; and it doesn't exist off on its own, without any connection or reliance on judicial opinion. The nation went 66 years with the lower federal courts perverting
Miller and creating their various collective right interpretations in the lower federal courts. That misconstruction is what became the "judicial 2nd Amendment" the article speaks of . . . With none of it endorsed by SCOTUS or relying on SCOTUS precedent.
Nobody really believed that
collective right "judicial 2nd Amendment" was the correct interpretation and settled law.
I sure know I had a blast back in the early 90's when I first started debating gun rights vs. gun control and I was definitely arguing the "aspirational 2nd Amendment" against lots of leftist anti-gun wackos arguing collective right theories. Their arguments were never consistent or compelling.
And then
Heller happened and it was an affirmation.
All those years I always knew I was correct on the law and I know I'm correct
now, arguing against the bullshit legal interpretations that the lower federal courts are putting out
now, still misconstructing and twisting SCOTUS . . . The "judicial 2nd Amendment" is a zombie, walking around, not knowing it is dead and should be under 6 feet of dirt. The dumb theories making up this article's "judicial 2nd Amendment" have already been overruled, abrogated, it just needs to be buried.
So, is it
really your position that the "judicial 2nd Amendment" is correct when it says AR-15's can be banned because the 4th Circuit says they are:
"convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach." --
Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017)
Of course the "aspirational 2nd Amendment" that follows
Miller says "assault weapons" are
absolutely protected by the 2nd Amendment.
I agree and I argue
that has always been the correct interpretation. I'll tell you, I will take delight in rubbing your nose in the big piles of aspiration coming from the Court in the next couple years.
.
