Sorry to discuss this:

[elleng]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Groundhawg]

1. Seems extremely clear.

[elleng]

3. Yes it does, but then the Court, through Scalia, suggested

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary' could be ignored. REALLY!

Here's a discussion: Antonin Scalia was wrong about the meaning of ‘bear arms’

For most of its history, the Second Amendment protected a collective right to gun ownership connected to service in the militia. This is fairly clear from the text, which says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

But in 2008, the Supreme Court found in District of Columbia v. Heller that the amendment instead supports an individual right to own a gun for any lawful purpose, a right that has nothing to do with military service.

In his opinion in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that we must understand the Constitution’s words exactly as the framers understood them, disconnected the right to keep and bear arms from the need for a well-regulated militia, in part because he concluded that the phrase “bear arms” did not refer to military contexts in the founding era.

By Scalia’s logic, the natural meaning of “bear arms” is simply to carry a weapon and has nothing to do with armies. He explained in his opinion: “Although [‘bear arms’] implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.”

But Scalia was wrong. . .'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html

[In It to Win It]

13. Scalia suggested 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary' could be ignored.

...and Scalia was the "textualist"

[elleng]

15. Right, drove us non-"textualists'' NUTS!

[elleng]

4. On THIS site? NEWS:

Justices’ Questions Suggest New York Gun Control Law Is Unlikely to Survive.
The law, which imposes strict limits on carrying guns in public, faced a skeptical reception from the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment.html

[forgotmylogin]

5. What part of "well" "regulated" and "militia" doesn't work?

Granting anyone the right to conceal a firearm doesn't sound well-regulated to me, IMHO.

"Regulating" does not necessarily imply "infringing".

[elleng]

6. NO part, of course.

[bluewater]

7. Context for this post is?

[Decoy of Fenris]

8. Probably the Supremes going to be striking down some NYS gun laws. n/t

[bluewater]

9. Thanks.

[elleng]

10. Oral argument today, on New York State statute.

[multigraincracker]

11. I thought it meant we should be

just like the Swiss.

[elleng]

12. How so?

Like this? 'Firearms regulation in Switzerland allows the acquisition of semi-automatic, and -with a may-issue permit- fully automatic firearms, by Swiss citizens and foreigners with or without permanent residence. The laws pertaining to the acquisition of firearms in Switzerland are amongst the most liberal in the world?'

[JanMichael]

14. The bullets. Everyone has one because of their militia

But most of them are male sold in central locations. There is no gander Mountain to buy bunch of bullets at

[multigraincracker]

16. Strict regulations on none military use.

Almost every one is a member, but must be trained and their autos locked up in the home. No carrying down the street unless on the way to train. Very strict regulation on purchase of bullets. A WELL regulate MILITIA.

Or it was last time I checked. May have changed in the last 10 or so years.

[multigraincracker]

17. Just looked and their laws were updated in 2019.

Still firearms may only be purchased for hunting, target shooting and collecting. For that means to me no large capacity magazines or military type rounds. Only about 23 firearms per 100 citizens. We have more than per every person.
A very different culture and crime rate. You might conclude, fewer firearms equal fewer crimes.

[elleng]

18. Thanks