In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” was unconnected to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” I don’t remember any conservatives complaining about constitutional reinterpretation or limitations on state’s rights, because they got what they wanted: extremely limited gun control. The end justified the means! How hypocritical.
The words of the Second Amendment are still intact, and, considering court approval of the sawed-off shotgun ban, could support a requirement that to “keep and bear” assault weapons, you must be a qualified, active member of a militia, i.e. national guard, or state or local police force. They already have background checks in place.
Why does this idea raise thoughts of Don Quixote tilting with a(n NRA) windmill?
— Jon Sharpe