Sorry Loving v Virginia, it didn't used to be widely understood that the equal protection clause would forbid inter racial marriage bans. After all, both white and black people are forbidden from marrying other races by those laws. There, equal. That's how it was historically understood, heck it was illegal in 16 states still at the time and widely disapproved of.

But this presumes origialism is some coherent philosophy in the first place, instead of an excuse for partisan hackery cherry picking by Heritage Foundation stooges to get the conclusion they want.

Count me in favor of packing the court, not like there's any integrity to jeopardize. More to lose by doing nothing while they continue to rampage.

And the major questions doctrine is just there to change laws they don't like.

And Florida

Speaking of Texas laws, could the rest of us pass a law that allows private citizens to sue anyone in possession of guns?

“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.”

As written, the right to bear arms only applies to people who are in a well regulated militia.

To me it seems like that statement is broken down into two parts, divided by the second comma.

What it's premise is is that a militia could be formed at any time when the need arises (the Minutemen, etc.), so all the citizenry can have guns so that they are armed when the militia is formed.

~~Now if back then militias always existed, and they were not formed/disbanded as needed, then ignore what I just said, as it's incorrect.~~ Edit: just realized if they're always formed or not wasn't the issue, its if they were given guns to fight or if they had to bring their own guns to the fight.

As written, the right to bear arms only applies to people who are in a well regulated militia.

The monkey paw curls. Gun control laws that do not exempt people who are in a well regulated militia are unconstitutional.

As written, the right belongs to 'the people'. That's everyone. It can't be infringed because that would interfere with their ability to form a well regulated militia, which is necessary to secure freedom.

English is hard sometimes, but not that hard if you try.

The modern use of "regulated" isn't the same as it was then.

Regulation had to do with training and equipment. The idea was that militias, as opposed to a standing ("Regular") army, weren't always trained and armed when they were called to arms. The idea of a "well-regulated militia" was for civilians to already have weapons and understand their use if they were needed.

So a requirement for a well-regulated militia is for civilians to have the right to own and use weapons.

Is it antiquated? Maybe. But saying that "well-regulated" militia was meant to limit access to firearms is an argument based on either ignorance or dishonesty.

Rights are not created, bestowed, issued, manufactured, or handed out.

They aren't a license or a badge or something physical.

No, they are created by Superman

Rights are a fascinating concept. While I agree with you practically that we definitely create the social contract that "gives" people rights, that's not really how rights are conceptualized in law. In the Western conception, rights are, by definition, not "given", they are "inalienable", meaning that you have rights even if someone has taken away your practical ability to exercise them. The rights themselves, separate from your ability to exercise them, are indeed considered "inherent". In the olden days, this was often codified or framed in terms of religion, but it doesn't have to be. Calling rights "natural" or "self-evident" are other ways of framing their "inherent-ness".

Of course, in reality it isn't so simple. We separate "natural" and "derived" rights. There aren't many natural rights. Things like the right to life, to self-determination, and to freedom of conscience are considered natural rights (in the West, anyway), while something like the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution would be considered a derived right. Derived rights, of course, are rather more subject to interpretation since they rely on a chain of reasoning from a more natural right, and that chain of reasoning is subject to challenge.