Now that Scalia has died, are gun-lovers feeling...

[TeddyR]

174. On what grounds

Do you justify the argument that "the people" in the 2d Amendment is a different group than "the people" in the 1st and 4th Amendments? The 2d immediately follows the 1st and both use the exact same phrase - "the people" - when referring to certain rights and were written by the same individuals. Why do you think "the people" would mean something different? That is contrary to every basic tenet of constitutional and statutory interpretation. You can argue that the militia clause somehow limits the 2d, but it is simply intellectually dishonest to contend that "the people" means different things when used in the 1st and 4th than when used in the 2d.

I certainly agree that original intent is important. In fact, I think it is dispositive with respect to the 2d. I should ask this question -- what do you think the 2d Amendment does protect? I believe it protects the right of every single law-abiding individual -- "the people" -- to own a firearm, for whatever legal reason they wish, and to carry that firearm outside of the home, and there is no mandate that you serve in a militia. I also believe that this right is subject to certain restrictions, such as no firearms for felons, or mentally ill.