US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

#31

Post by strideashort » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:09 PM UTC

stymaar wrote: post #28

strideashort wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. It’s about the right. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State. The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.

> The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as. Absolutely not. The state and the federal government definitely keep the monopoly of violence: you can't kill someone you believe raped your wife, the government can (under due process but still). Refusing the government to have the monopoly of violence would mean that other groups independent from the state can exert violence on their fellow…

A single man is no threat to the state, so your example is wrong.

A militia could be.

To be able to form militia to resist the government, individuals have absolute right to be armed.

The mechanics is really pretty simple.

And yes, I believe that extends to all arms, as is written, otherwise the intent - to be able to form militia which can overpower the government - can not be fulfilled.

That is the constitution.

I am not saying I agree with it, but at the same time, without absolute right to bear arms, the government _will_ demilitarize the people.

Re: US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

#32

Post by strideashort » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:12 PM UTC

sophacles wrote: post #20

strideashort wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part of “shall not be infringed” is hard to parse, exactly? The question is not if you agree with it or not, the question is, if the constitution matters at all. If your position is that constitution should be overridden by contemporary narratives as government sees fit, I guess that is a valid position, but then accept that your position is one which advocates for government totalitarianism without constitutio…

Which part of "a well regulated militia" is hard to parse exactly? The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia. Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State. Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under th…

No it’s not.

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

Re: US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

#33

Post by SilverElfin » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:31 PM UTC

sophacles wrote: post #20

strideashort wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part of “shall not be infringed” is hard to parse, exactly? The question is not if you agree with it or not, the question is, if the constitution matters at all. If your position is that constitution should be overridden by contemporary narratives as government sees fit, I guess that is a valid position, but then accept that your position is one which advocates for government totalitarianism without constitutio…

Which part of "a well regulated militia" is hard to parse exactly? The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia. Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State. Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under th…

A simple Google search would pull up explanations of how the amendment is literally phrased to grant an unconditional right. It’s not even controversial - the grammar is unambiguous.

Re: US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

#34

Post by SilverElfin » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:32 PM UTC

evil-olive wrote: post #18

SilverElfin wrote: post #2

They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.

> with jail time for legislators and governors uh-huh. what provision in the Constitution authorizes this, exactly? is there anything in contemporaneous writings (Federalist Papers, for example) where someone advocated that a reasonable separation of powers would be "Article 3 judges should have the power to send legislators to jail as a side-effect of ruling that a law is unconstitutional"? you can argue about the 2…

The constitution is the highest law of the land. Violating it has consequences. They should be enforced.

> but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign

Ad hominem aside, this is equivalent to “We should have laws but they should be selectively meaningless”

Re: US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

#35

Post by maxlybbert » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:39 PM UTC

thmsths wrote: post #6

Looking at the first page, the circumstances surrounding the indictment are infuriating. I thought that search warrants had to be specific to avoid just that kind of fishing expedition. The initial warrant was for terrorism related charges, it seems they found no evidence of it. How come they can then turn around and go for other charges?

You would think so. Strangely, even though warrants have to be specific, police are allowed to seize things they come across during the search, even if those things aren’t on the warrant ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/128/ ).

It’s not a free-for-all, though. If the warrant is for a stolen car, the police can’t open up pill bottles during the search; they have to look in places where a stolen car could be hidden ( https://www.fletc.gov/audio/execution-search-warrant-i-mp3 , do a text search for “elephant”). And the things being seized have to be obvious contraband ( https://www.rothdavies.com/criminal-defense/frequently-asked... ).

Re: US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

#36

Post by sophacles » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:55 PM UTC

strideashort wrote: post #32

sophacles wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part of "a well regulated militia" is hard to parse exactly? The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia. Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State. Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under th…

No it’s not. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

What an absurd thing to say. You just made my point - a well regulated militia vital to the amendment. So why in your vast wisdom are you opposed to regulations associated with a regulated militia?

Re: US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

#37

Post by sophacles » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 7:03 PM UTC

SilverElfin wrote: post #33

sophacles wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part of "a well regulated militia" is hard to parse exactly? The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia. Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State. Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under th…

A simple Google search would pull up explanations of how the amendment is literally phrased to grant an unconditional right. It’s not even controversial - the grammar is unambiguous.

A simple google search also pulls up explanations of the opposite. And plenty talking about how the grammar is extremely ambiguous.

I actually like this ruling. I just think the absurd level of zealotry and bad/stupid/illogical reasoning that comes from the ignorance worshiping 2A crowd is fucking embarrassing as a human.

Re: US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

#38

Post by sophacles » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 7:04 PM UTC

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #26

sophacles wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part of "a well regulated militia" is hard to parse exactly? The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia. Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State. Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under th…

I remember the word "regulated" back in the day does not mean "regulated" like the FDA regulates foods, it means "regulated" like we still use it for regulating a mechanical watch. "To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning."

And you regulate a militia by making sure all the bits work together, for instance by standardizing weapons and ammo.

This is also a great argument for licensing - proving that you know how to properly work and use a gun seems like perfect militia regulation (in the proper functioning sense).

Re: US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

#39

Post by evil-olive » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 7:05 PM UTC

stymaar wrote: post #10

SilverElfin wrote: post #2

They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.

Read the second amendment: the constitutional right is about “A well regulated Militia”.

OK, if I accept your argument that the 2nd amendment is only about the militia, then what is the militia?

if your answer is the National Guard, that is ahistorical, because the modern National Guard was created in 1903. [0]

the "militia", as it existed at the time the 2nd amendment was passed [1] was:

> each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted)

so if you really want to hang your hat on "the militia" then the 2nd Amendment means women and non-white people aren't allowed to own firearms, and men over 45 need a permit of some kind?

there's a lot of debate to be had about firearms laws, but grammatical nitpicking on this level is really kind of pointless. there is even debate about whether an extra comma changes the meaning [2].

another source you can look at is individual state constitutions. in my home state of Washington, for example [3]:

> The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

drafted in 1889, and could not state more plainly that it applies to individuals.

historically, it has always been an individual right. if you want to try to argue that modern firearms mean the right should be subject to more restrictions, go ahead. but don't try to rewrite history in the process.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#Second_Mi...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...

3: https://leg.wa.gov/state-laws-and-rules/washington-state-con...

Re: US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

#40

Post by comrade1234 » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 7:19 PM UTC

SilverElfin wrote: post #2

They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.

It's ridiculous to think that gun laws should be the same in some rural backwater vs in a dense urban area.