From the posting of the Declaration of Independence, to this much sadder state of affairs in our Republic which is the result of the “dumbing down” of the general population with respect to understanding the basic machinations of government which are supposed to guarantee the common law and preexisting natural rights belonging to the People, we have arrived at a place where we either educate or capitulate. I choose the latter, not that my feeble attempts will alter a single thing, all one can do is their best. (I will be judged for my commissions not omissions.)

In 1776, when the radicals bent on insurrection threw down the gauntlet to the Crown there were no written foundations of prose that underpinned Liberty on these shores, just a dogged determination to shrug off the yoke of tyranny and live free or die. A novel experiment whose time had come.

In the aftermath of that great conflagration that saw an upheaval of the status quo on Earth at that time, the individual learned that their participation could in fact generate Liberty, IF they used their hands to grasp the tools necessary to wrest it from tyrants. That spectacular assemblage of brilliant men who gathered to construct a rule book “for the ages” sought to lay out a map of governance “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. It is that simple.

The construction of government in the constitution is one of checks and balances so that no person or group of persons becomes paramount in strength. Three grand divisions were set, administrative, legislative and judicial. Laws generated by the legislative branch must be couched in the constitution, otherwise they are void and without force. The administrative branch is to enforce laws, and the judiciary was envisioned as the arbiter of compliance with the intent of the founders i.e., constitutionality.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The 2nd Amendment is part of the constitution, and the Supreme Court has over the last two hundred and thirty-four (234) years treated as a stepchild, until the courts began to remedy the infringements place on the right to arms by the Four (4) Pillars; Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), Caetano (2016) and finally Bruen (2022).

District of Columbia et al. v. Heller (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/Heller-2008) is the modern day case which designated that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess arms unconnected to militia service, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. It institutes the “dangerous and unusual” designation, guaranteeing arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are covered by the “unqualified command” of the Second Amendment for those who can lawfully possess them to do so. It defined arms “as any thing that a man wears for his defence (sic), or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.”

McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 1 (2010) (https://tinyurl.com/yc77pbbs) held that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. “In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” Citing “state courts have held that these rights are subject to "interest-balancing" and have sustained a variety of restrictions” the Court then incorporated the Second Amendment against the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a remedy to that lack.

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, (2016) (https://tinyurl.com/yf89ejmf) quoting from the holdings of the case, “It is settled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that applies against both the Federal Government and the States…the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether stun guns are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today…As the per curiam (means entire Court agreed) opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual.” Arms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command”.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 2 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022) (https://tinyurl.com/Bruen-2022) held “New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.” This case states “The test that we set forth in Heller and apply today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment's text and historical understanding.”

In short, Heller defined what arms are, which may be banned, demanded that it is an individual right to possess and carry those permitted arms for all lawful purposes. McDonald tells us that the states must abide by that instruction (both courts and legislatures). Caetano reemphasizes that “dangerous and unusual” is a conjunctive requirement for banning any class of arms and Bruen mandates that historical tradition is the single metric for measuring current infringements on the right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes.

If seven of the thirteen original states did not infringe the right to carry arms for lawful purposes in 1791, it is unconstitutional to do so today.