The REAL 2A Issue SCOTUS Must Address

I believe the most important 2A issue the Supreme Court should address is this:  The Second Amendment’s absolute imperative nature.

If SCOTUS can get that right, all other issues mentioned in the OP will take a big, fat, massive back seat.

In the military, we had… I’ll just post a screen shot from TO 00-05-1, Technical Manual, AF TECHNICAL ORDER SYSTEM, Foreword, page ix:

353794

SHALL is binding. It is an absolute imperative. It’s used precisely in the same meaning as it was since the inception of the Constitution itself. There is no wiggle room, no room for “interpretation.” No legislative, executive or judicial action at any level can lawfully override it. The only lawful suspension occurs commensurate with the lawful suspension of other rights, namely, during arrest and incarceration.

Furthermore, the First Amendment specifically restricts Congress with it’s “Congress shall make no law” clause. The Second Amendment, on the other hand, is not limited to Congress. It applies to the entire nation,

Thus, consider the binding, absolute imperative nature of the Second Amendment, applying as it does to our entire nation, to governments, entities, organizations and persons at all levels when you re-read it’s verbiage:

“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.”

The 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms thoroughly examined the “well-regulated Militia” pretext, concluding from the Founding Fathers’ own amplifying letters and speeches they were referring to the militia at large, in the broadest sense, that is, every able-bodied person capable of using a firearm.  State, capitalized, refers to Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, etc. i.e. each and every State in the Union.  Both the 1982 report as well as District of Columbia v. Heller confirms that the right to keep and bear Arms is an individual right.  McDonald v. City of Chicago confirmed that the right to keep and bear Arms is enforceable against the states. Maloney v. Singas determined that nunchaku are considered arms under the second amendment, and as such New York State’s outright 1974 ban is unconstitutional.  By similitude, the right of the people to keep and bear arms of all types are protected under the Second Amendment.  Moore v. Madigan ruled that states cannot infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms by prohibiting both open carry and concealed carry. Specifically, “The plaintiffs, Michael Moore (not the famous filmmaker), Mary Shepard and the Second Amendment Foundation, sought an injunction against Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, and other named defendants, barring them from enforcing two key provisions of the Illinois Statutes prohibiting public possession of a firearm or other weapon.”

In light of the above, at least according to the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America i.e. “the supreme Law of the Land,” banning ownership/possession (keep) or carry (bear) in any public place is a Constitutionally unlawful infringement upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Sadly, the anti-gun and anti-Constitutional forces i.e. domestic enemies in these United States of America continue to obfuscate the issue at every turn.

Updated: April 27, 2021 — 8:11 am