I absolutely agree with you. The “originalism employed by the Scalia progeny is so vague it allows judges to cherrypick obscure sources to fit the desired outcome. It is intellectually dishonest.
This specific misinterpretation is one of the key things that keeps me from bringing my family to the United States (even though my kids have US citizenship). Even with a war going on next door, they remain much safer growing up in Poland. Thanks for your analysis restating that the currently popular misinterpretation of the original intent of the Second Amendment is a gross error in modern judgment.
There isn’t much more to say. The other commenters have summed it up quite nicely. I wish I wasn’t forced to live under a Constitution that isn’t interpreted based on current societal norms.
I'm sure you are completely clear in your mind what you're talking about but I'm lost. For example, WHO says they have no direct evidence to prove their thesis? You seem to have concluded that because Virginia explicitly demanded the 2nd Amendment, with Patrick Henry and George Mason fighting desperately for slave patrols, that it wasn't a major focus of the 2nd Amendment. BTW, you're still free to write your own story.
Your statement about a "Bogus theory about slave patrols" indicates an inability to read with comprehension and an unwillingness to accept the facts. Feel free to write your own story about the 2nd Amendment and highlight whatever you like, but any denial that slave patrols weren't a major focus would be a lie.
First, I agree with your points, and respect your writing.
I have read Akhil Reed Amar and his ideas on the Second Founding, this idea that the Civil War amendments were by radical republicans to ensure the rights of the newly enslaved were protected.
His research showed how the framers of the 14th amendment insisted the rights of the people would be enforceable against the state governments. Previously, the amendments to the constitution applied to the federal government only.
One of the ideas debated was ensuring Blacks in the South could use the second amendment to arm themselves. The local governments could not pass laws limiting ownership of guns by Blacks.
They could fight against the KKK, or local governments denying them rights.
Why does your article leave out so much of the actual history behind the Second Amendment?
Six States proposed 2A related amendments, Virginia was the third.
If you actually believe the Bogus theory about slave patrols, how would you explain the length of time that it took Virginia to get around to ratifying the 2nd?
Shouldn't they have been first in line, rather than eleventh?
Everybody knows of idiots who should not even have a plastic fork, much less a firearm- except machine gun Alito and Uncle Clarence. DD
I absolutely agree with you. The “originalism employed by the Scalia progeny is so vague it allows judges to cherrypick obscure sources to fit the desired outcome. It is intellectually dishonest.
This specific misinterpretation is one of the key things that keeps me from bringing my family to the United States (even though my kids have US citizenship). Even with a war going on next door, they remain much safer growing up in Poland. Thanks for your analysis restating that the currently popular misinterpretation of the original intent of the Second Amendment is a gross error in modern judgment.
There isn’t much more to say. The other commenters have summed it up quite nicely. I wish I wasn’t forced to live under a Constitution that isn’t interpreted based on current societal norms.
I'm sure you are completely clear in your mind what you're talking about but I'm lost. For example, WHO says they have no direct evidence to prove their thesis? You seem to have concluded that because Virginia explicitly demanded the 2nd Amendment, with Patrick Henry and George Mason fighting desperately for slave patrols, that it wasn't a major focus of the 2nd Amendment. BTW, you're still free to write your own story.
How could you be lost?
Your article has two links to Carl Bogus. If you read his law review, he tells you that it's a thesis and no direct evidence exists to prove it.
Why do you believe it was a "major focus" of the Second Amendment?
The reality is that all six States that proposed 2A related amendments cited opposition to a standing army.
Your statement about a "Bogus theory about slave patrols" indicates an inability to read with comprehension and an unwillingness to accept the facts. Feel free to write your own story about the 2nd Amendment and highlight whatever you like, but any denial that slave patrols weren't a major focus would be a lie.
Interesting way to avoid answering the question about what took Virginia so long to ratify the 2nd.
But that's just one of several things about the Bogus theory that don't make sense where 2A history is concerned.
He tells you that there's no direct evidence to prove his thesis is correct, did you miss that part?
First, I agree with your points, and respect your writing.
I have read Akhil Reed Amar and his ideas on the Second Founding, this idea that the Civil War amendments were by radical republicans to ensure the rights of the newly enslaved were protected.
His research showed how the framers of the 14th amendment insisted the rights of the people would be enforceable against the state governments. Previously, the amendments to the constitution applied to the federal government only.
One of the ideas debated was ensuring Blacks in the South could use the second amendment to arm themselves. The local governments could not pass laws limiting ownership of guns by Blacks.
They could fight against the KKK, or local governments denying them rights.
That's radical.
"Nowhere in the 27 words of the Second Amendment does it contemplate AR-15-style weapons, high-capacity magazines"
High-capacity magazines existed when the 2A was written.
"Fully automatic machine guns and “military-grade weapons” are still mostly illegal."
They are?
According to whom?
Why does your article leave out so much of the actual history behind the Second Amendment?
Six States proposed 2A related amendments, Virginia was the third.
If you actually believe the Bogus theory about slave patrols, how would you explain the length of time that it took Virginia to get around to ratifying the 2nd?
Shouldn't they have been first in line, rather than eleventh?
Serendipity. Currently reading "Worse Than Nothing" by Erwin Chemerinsky about the fallacy of originalism in constitutional law.
Good book for those who are still confused over how we got here in 2026. 😐