Biden, Leftists Hate That SCOTUS Upheld the 2nd and 14th Amendment in NY Conceal Carry Case
We must dissolve SCOTUS, you guys.
Maybe I find so much pleasure seeing the left go insane because I used to be one.
First, we had New York Gov. Kathy Hochul losing her mind over SCOTUS ruling 6-3 that the state’s concealed carry law is unconstitutional. You had to have “probable cause” to conceal carry your handgun outside of your house.
Hochul is not the only one. We have President Joe Biden crying over it and throwing out the usual hogwash the left loves to spew when they don’t get their way.
I normally ignore some of these people but I cannot today because they’re displaying their fascist attitudes.
Remember, Justice Clarence Thomas said it violated the 2nd AND 14th Amendments. Not just the 2md Amendment:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
Now let’s look at the reactions. Keith Olbermann, ladies and gentlemen! He has no reading comprehension skills and wants to do away with SCOTUS because he didn’t get his way. He calls Justice Amy Coney-Barrett a paralegal, too. What a sad man.
It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States.
The first step is for a state the "court" has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.
Great. You're a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?#IgnoreTheCourt
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) June 23, 2022
This would be a good moment to remind new readers that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with gun ownership, private or otherwise.
The constitution and the amendments teem with property references. Yet, the word “own” is not in the 2A – nor is any synonym.
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) June 23, 2022
Also, fuck Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and the paralegal Coney Barrett.
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) June 23, 2022
Jeffrey Toobin, who masturbated during a Zoom call, goes off on SCOTUS because it would obviously lead to more mass shootings.
The hysteria, you guys:
“You know, we know that in the United States you have the right under the First Amendment to say pretty much anything anywhere because we have freedom of speech in the United States. What the conservatives on the Supreme Court are saying is we want the Second Amendment to be a first class right like the First Amendment,” Toobin griped.
The CNN analyst then accused conservatives of wanting absolutely no restrictions or regulations on the ability to carry guns.
“And [they] want to be able to carry guns anywhere anytime without any sort of regulation by the government, without background checks, without restrictions on where you can take a weapon, without restrictions on how you can carry a weapon,” he claimed.
Later he added that the Court had “expanded” the Second Amendment, and it was unclear whether they had “completely eliminated the possibility for any sort of gun regulation.”
CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin is not happy with SCOTUS' Second Amendment ruling. pic.twitter.com/SYP6kN0dbE
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 23, 2022
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse with his usual reaction: DARK MONEY!
SCOTUS gun decision is out and gave the gun lobby just what it paid for when its dark money stacked the Court.
— Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) June 23, 2022
This dude became a leftist because Sarah Silverman was nice to him…once.
The SCOTUS is a disgrace. Because God forbid we ask for proper cause requirements to own weapons. The 2nd amendment should be amended, I am sick of this bullshit.
— David Weissman (@davidmweissman) June 23, 2022
This dude got popular on Twitter for stealing videos and CNN propped him up even more. Totes serious person.
The American people are having to swallow these ridiculous conservative SCOTUS opinions when the wife of one if the Justices actively tried to subvert the will of the American people by pushing a fake electors scheme in the most recent election.
We’re a laughingstock.
— Rex Chapman🏇🏼 (@RexChapman) June 23, 2022
The hyperbole gives me a headache. No, that is not hyperbole. My head hurts after reading all this crap. It’s a dark day, you guys, because SCOTUS upheld the Constitution.
A dark day in America.
This is a dangerous decision from a court hell bent on pushing a radical ideological agenda and infringing on the rights of states to protect our citizens from being gunned down in our streets, schools, and churches.
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 23, 2022
Someone tell Ana, who is married to the man who banned GOProud from CPAC, that SCOTUS isn’t about feels. It’s about the Constitution.
How tone-deaf to America’s very real gun violence epidemic can the majority in the Supreme Court be?
This is a disgrace.
— Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) June 23, 2022
Let’s get to Biden’s reaction.
I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Since 1911, the State of New York has required individuals who would like to carry a concealed weapon in public to show a need to do so for the purpose of self-defense and to acquire a license. More than a century later, the United States Supreme Court has chosen to strike down New York’s long-established authority to protect its citizens. This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.
In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society — not less — to protect our fellow Americans. I remain committed to doing everything in my power to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer. I have already taken more executive actions to reduce gun violence than any other President during their first year in office, and I will continue to do all that I can to protect Americans from gun violence.
Yes, we should do more. All of these shooters had signs of committing atrocities spanning years before they did it. No one stepped in. No one did a damn thing.
“Commonsense laws.” Such vague words:
I urge states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence. As the late Justice Scalia recognized, the Second Amendment is not absolute. For centuries, states have regulated who may purchase or possess weapons, the types of weapons they may use, and the places they may carry those weapons. And the courts have upheld these regulations.
The justices are not always correct. They once said “separate but equal” and that Obamacare was a “tax.”
Love ya, Justice Scalia, but no. The 2nd Amendment is absolute.
The 2nd Amendment, no actually, the entire Constitution is absolute. The 2nd Amendment says: “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.”
We have open carry here in Oklahoma and, well, it’s not Armageddon here! We’re doing just fine, thank you very much.
The featured photo comes from this video.
“Clarence Thomas laughs at things” would be a great account.
Here he is laughing at the idea of TMZ. So great. #CTlive pic.twitter.com/jnyYdmH9gM
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) May 28, 2021
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
All of these assholes, including the Thief in the White House, wants you dead.
Don’t ever disarm.
So that dreaded “White Supremacist” Clarence Thomas ruined the day of gun grabbers.
As one of our local Leftist once said to explain this phenomenon: Many blacks think like racist whites.
So the Mayor of New York City and the Governor have decided to ignore the ruling of the Court…Adams specifically saying he will not comply. When, in the past, has a city or state opening ignored a ruling from the Supreme Court? . So is New York in a state of secession from the USA?
I greatly fear now for the country as the Left begins to gin up real uncontrollable anger from its minions. Do they not know that any terrible action on their part would deservedly ignite a firestorm?
Oh, the Wise Latina did say that “mistakes” can be “fixed”.
Sounds like… insurrection.
Maybe “rebellion.” They’re not trying to overthrow the government, they’re defying it.
Nah. Use the I-word as much as possible to describe Democrat hijinx. Devalue it, just like they devalued the Yankee Dollar.
The d/prog sure love them some nullification. Some of these reactions sound a good deal like John Calhoun but without the sanity of being based in opposition to actual overreach. Here these modern day nullification aficionados reject the text and historical basis of our enumerated constitutional rights in favor of their opinion.
It is not “nullifcation.” Nullification is a refusal to convict at trial.
It is rebellion against lawful authority. Which could lead to actual nullification if the decision permitted an unjust law to stand. But that is not the situation here. By striking laws, SCOTUS is preventing trials under them. If the state should attempt to enforce such laws at trial in the future, juries would be fully justified in nullifying their enforcement.
John Calhoun did in fact advance the theory of nullification by which a State simply ignores a particular Judicial ruling or Legislative act which that State’s Legislature finds odious. See the ‘tariffs of abominations’ passed in 1828 and John C Calhoun’s writings in his Southern Expositions where he lays out his views on the right of a State to nullify by simply ignoring a Federal action.
Jury nullification is a similar but separate concept.
There is “jury nullification” and there is “state nullification.” Similar names, two different things.
Managed to hit Submit before I finished. For modern examples of state nullification, think marijuana legalization and illegal immigrant sanctuary states.
Neither of those are cases of nullification. In both cases the state acknowledges the federal law, but exercises its undoubted right to refuse the federal government assistance in enforcing it. That right has been recognized since at least the early 19th century as protected by the 10th amendment. The federal government remains free to enforce its own law with its own resources.
Nullification, as proposed by Madison and Jefferson, and later by Calhoun, would mean the state not recognizing a federal law as legitimate.
No, he didn’t. At least not in any reporting I’ve seen, and if he’d said something like that it would have been all over.
He’s reported all over as condemning and lamenting the decision, and saying NY now must explore its options, but there’s not been even a hint of noncomliance.
Now the DOJ is saying “they will not comply,” either!
“Great. You’re a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?”
If the militia of the people will enforce them, they will be coming after you second.
“Also, fuck Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and the paralegal Coney Barrett.’
Fuck you Olbermann, and all the rest of your Marxist, parent-plowing buddies.
Or, should I say kid-plowers?
This is an encouraging ruling. I was giving up on the courts after it’s a tax and you have no standing in 2020.
Perhaps the court is leery of pissing off the people who own guns.
Which, of course, was the very reason the people were confirmed of their right to own guns.
I have a hope that I am just a wacky conspiracy theorist and am wrong about many things. Maybe the court actually will save our constitutional republic.
I am terrified to have my constitutional republic in such a fragile state that it can be saved only thanks to the happy confluence of seven specific blackrobes and a puckish billionaire.
You have a Republic, if you can keep it
Would love to have Old Ben with us today
Pretty sure he would have been a victim of the ‘me too’ insanity and run out of public life.
There’s much truth to Gov. Hochul’s threat to ignore the law. These Dems are doing this with illegal immigration and various crimes. They ignore laws that they do not like. That is an insurrection, pure and simple. Without laws, there is no nation. She, Biden, and the Dem Senators and House reps needs to be tried for sedition.
That is the basis for Texas’ upcoming move to secede from the Union. If the federal government refuses to respect states’ rights or even the US Constitution, then there is no union.
I live in Texas… we don’t have the balls to do it
True. Drive around Van Zandt County you’ll find some dudes, maybe out in Terlingua they wouldn’t mind.
I think New Hampshire is more likely to secede first.
but you’re not from texas–you weren’t born here
I don’t know that Texas will, either. Though I wonder what the repercussions would be for Texas and the U.S. if that actually did happen. It would be a long process and wouldn’t happen immediately anyway, even if Texans were to support it.
I don’t believe any state has the population necessary to pull this off. It takes people determined to take whatever heads their way and everyone is just to dependent on the government these days. We’ve gone soft, even the “Don’t mess with Texas!” crowd. Just think how terrorized many people are with the school massacres which account for very few child deaths every year. More likely to get struck by lightening or by a car on the way to school.
We just aren’t the tough guys we imagine ourselves to be. Too much soy and corn syrup in our diets.
What threat? There has been a ton of reporting on her reaction, and yet I have not seen any mention of any such threat. If you’ve seen one, please link it.
That is just not true, at least if you’re referring to “sanctuary states” and “-cities”. Those are simply states (and cities, with their states’ permission) who are standing on their constitutional right to refuse the federal government assistance in enforcing its laws. Are you denying that right? If so, you have no grounds on which to complain about Dems ignoring your constitutional rights, such as the RKBA.
Like Mark “Slash” Levin likes to say: “It’s a Bill of RIGHTS, not a Bill of NEEDS!”
We don’t need to prove that we have a NEED to use our freedom of speech either before we use it. We either have these rights or we don’t.
Could there possibly be a bigger fucking moron than Keith Olberman?
Think it through, you dumb fuck. You want to dissolve our system of government? Guess what, dipshit, you’re REALLY going to need a gun then!
“Could there possibly be a bigger fucking moron than Keith Olberman?”
On being-wrong batting average alone, he’d get a run for his money from Paul Krugman.
There are far too many obnoxious, narcissistic and insufferable Dumb-o-crat totalitarian pundits to list, here. Krugman and Olberman are prominent, but, they represent only the surface level of the Dumb-o-crat Well of Stupidity, whose foul depths have no bottom.
Olberman’s not as smart as he thinks he is. That, or he is, as I heard once, “too smart by half”.
“We have open carry here in Oklahoma and, well, it’s not Armageddon here! We’re doing just fine, thank you very much.”
I like my calm, quiet, small country town life. When I hear gunshots, it’s either someone target practicing, or perhaps the guy who owns the field behind us getting rid of some snapping turtles in his fish ponds.
Doesn’t a demand for “common sense” gun laws imply that existing gun laws represent something less than ” common sense”?
An appeal for “more laws” to address a situation already addressed by a multitude of laws, is an admission that none of the other laws solved the problem they were enacted to solve. Such appeals should give us no confidence the next law (or laws) will be any more effective. How can we rely upon the promise of these new laws when the promises made to advance the old remain unfulfilled?
It doesn’t make sense unless you realize our elite are afraid we might shoot them.
You need to remember why the 2nd amendment was added to the constitution. The authors had recently defeated the super power of the day to gain freedom. This victory over tyranny was only possible because personally owned arms. They wanted to preserve the citizens right to keep and bear arms so that citizens would be able to defend their liberty against tyranny in the future.
Dems seek to establish their progressive fascist utopia, aka tyranny. They know that this is impossible if citizens can resist and firearms make resistance possible. Which is why their long term goal is ending personally owned firearms.
Now whenever I see Jeffrey Toobin expostulating I always make sure I can see both of his hands, at all times, above or on the table.
Had to read “expostulating” carefully….
If you have to ask the government for permission to do something, is it really an inalienable right?
It is, if there are enough exceptions or restrictions to the right that it makes sense to have a licensing scheme to ensure that only those who are entitled to the right take advantage of it, and if that scheme imposes as small a burden as feasible on the exercise of the right.
For instance, voter ID. Or for that matter voter registration. Or border formalities when a US citizen enters the country.
That’s why the court did not and is not likely to strike down CCW requirements in “shall issue” states; in those states, if you qualify for a permit you get one, and compliance is not too expensive or arduous. If a state were to make it more burdensome than necessary, e.g. by raising the price too high or making the process too complicated, the courts would strike that down.
“How do you think you can enforce your rulings?” sounds a lot like Josef Stalin’s “How many divisions has [the Pope]?”
It sounds a lot more like the quote falsely attributed to Andrew Jackson. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it”.
(Marshall never ordered Jackson to do anything in that case, so there was nothing for him to defy. He did make a similar comment, but it was about Georgia’s refusal to obey the supreme court, and the court’s inability to enforce its order.)
Just wait until Roe is overturned. All the heads that didn’t explode today will light up the sky.
Just waiting for the sooty glow to light up the evening sky over most every major leftist city.
“I remain committed to doing everything in my power to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer.”
Everything except putting the ones who use guns to commit actual crimes in jail for a very long time.
Or reopening our mental institutions and, with due process, putting those diagnosed as dangerous to themselves and society into them.
Idiot Toobin’s “analysis” is typically foolish. The Second Amendment should be just as robustly cherished and valued as all the other Amendments; no more and no less. Justice Thomas memorably had written in a comment to a denial of cert (I believe) that it was long past time for SCOTUS to stop treating the Second Amendment “as a disfavored right.”
“The justices are not always correct. They once said “separate but equal” and blacks counted as 3/5 a person. It also ruled that Obamacare was a “tax.”
While I celebrate the SCOTUS ruling, I would also observe that this is incorrect, Mary. The court never made the 3/5 ruling as it is in the Constitution itself.
Contrary to popular belief (especially promoted by Al Gore back in 2000), the 3/5 compromise was the result of the dispute between slave and free states. The southern slave states wanted FULL counting of slaves in the population in order to bolster their representation in the House. It was the NORTH that didn’t want them counted at all for the opposite reason.
Let’s get our history straight.
Looks like that may have been fixed.
The leftists think everyone is stupid. Too stupid to do basic math and common sense. Were is their more gun violence? In “Gun Free” zones. Where is there less gun violence? In open/carry states. The “guns” are not the problem. Senator Kennedy of Louisana said it best, “we don’t need gun control, we need idiot control”
Take care of the criminals and the guns will take care of themselves.
Keith, when did “keep” stop being a synonym for “own”?
Law is particular. You can possess without owning, and own without possessing. You can possess by picking a gun off a table and carrying it to a drawer. You can transfer by handing a class gun to a student during a course. Which of those actions are included in “keep” and which are not? I think I know but would not at all be surprised to be told I didn’t.
Biden cites the Buffalo shooting, apparently unaware that the just-nullified NY law was in full force at the time. It had no effect at all. Since it didn’t work, how is removing it going to change things?
How might a couple of properly armed citizens in that market at the time have changed things?
The Buffalo shooter made it plain as day that he chose that location because he knew their law had disarmed the innocent folks. But if a tree falls in a forest and the media doesn’t report it, it didn’t actually happen.
Pesky thing, that Constitution. The term “wild west” has been said by some pearl clutching libs. They should spend some time out west, where criminals don’t know which citizens may be armed, and capable of self defense. They may learn something, but I doubt it.
The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality
What a refreshing breath of fresh air from the Court, so uncomplicated it’s almost understandable. Biden’s response portrays EXACTLY what is wrong with Democrats and Progressives today. In New York they indeed had had a “long-established,” and finally declared unconstitutional, “authority to protect its citizens.” No such authority exists and it’s not theirs to assume. The very notion that New York’s legislators, governors, mayors, district attorneys, various bureaucrats and ‘public servants’ believe they have actually been protecting its citizens is laughable to the point of being a sick joke. These are the very people who have now taken to putting known criminals back on the street immediately after being arrested, opening jails to release inmates, and sending ill citizens to live with the elderly and medically compromised.
It gets worse. In what world does Joe Biden, the President who has opened our borders and surreptitiously provides transportation for untold numbers of illegal immigrants in the dark of night to communities all across the nation, believe himself to be the one who is making “our communities safer”? The man is delusional; his handlers, the American people, and the world all know it – and he doesn’t.
The point is that it’s not his job, or Democrats, or progressives, or Anthony Fauci’s, or Gretchen Whitmer’s, or Kathy Hochul’s, or Pete Buttigieg’s to “protect Americans from gun violence.” or COVID, or broken supply chains, or high fuel prices, or baby food shortages – Americans are perfectly capable of managing those things themselves. All the various governments meddling in our affairs manage to do is mess them up, make the problems worse – or create them in the first place.
The nanny state is a living, breathing disaster. A single armed shopper or teacher could have, probably would have, prevented most of the disaster of the past several weeks, certainly more than did all the professionals amassed in formations outside on the street.
The guy in the article talking about “proper cause requirements” doesn’t know what he’s talking about. My understanding is that people have had legit reasons to acquire a gun, and have been denied.
Apparently, California has a similar law. I saw a video by Ben Shapiro yesterday where he tried (because of death threats) to get a gun in California, and showed up with stacks of evidence (i.e. the death threats themselves), and he was still denied, because, “You can just call the police.”
Legit according to whom? That’s the point here. In “may issue” states, it’s entirely up to the county authorities to decide how legit your need is, and some have been extremely skeptical of such needs. In Hawaii, for instance, I believe there are only about half a dozen people in the whole state whose “need” was deemed legit. And that’s what the court said you can’t do.
In Marlboro Massachusetts, a woman with an abusive ex-husband was repeatedly denied a license to purchase a handgun because she had “no exceptional need.”
The ex-husband put her in the hospital with life-threatening injuries.
When she went back to the police chief with a renewed request for a license, he disqualified her for having “a history of violence.”
1. Keith Olberman doesn’t understand what the words “keep” and “bear” mean with relation to the 2nd Amendment.
when used with an object, “keep” means “to hold or retain in one’s possession; hold as one’s own”.
And to “bear arms” means “to carry or possess arms”
He also doesn’t seem to understand what “the right of the people” means.
2. Keith Olberman isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. I doubt he’s read the Constitution.
3. Since when do we need to ask the government’s permission to exercise a right?
As to the guy in the article talking about “Proper Cause”, there’s only one you need: “The Constitution”.
I wonder if he’d like it if he had to get “proper cause” to take the 5th, or exercise his 4th or 6th Amendment rights, or if he needed “proper cause” to exercise his 1st Amendment rights. I think he’d be singing a different tune then.
I hate to say this, but I do have to ask: What *are* the repercussions if NY decides to ignore this ruling? What would really happen?
The immediate repercussion is that the plaintiffs in the suit that was just decided must be issued permits. The next repercussion is that the next person denied a permit will sue, and the court will order the authorities to show cause why they should not grant the permit.
The left simply wants all law abiding Americans who carry disarmed, which is a direct violation of the Second Amendment, but is silent about thugs and criminals who will get guns regardless of any statute on the books via the black market
PLENTY of illegal weapons in Democrat-dominated cities. Those are obvious places to start if they want to refine their gun-grabbing skills while actually enforcing existing laws.
In the mean time they can leave the patriotic, responsible, law-abiding ~third of citizens alone to Constitutionally live their lives. (“Deplorable” as we may be.)
In regards to Jeffrey Toobin, is it safe to say the words, masterbation and goes off, in the same sentence?
As Justice Gorsuch pointed out, it’s not like the New York law, when in-place, actually stopped a shooting from happening. When we see the prosecutors actually enforcing the constitutional laws on the books, then the liberals can start complaining about the unconstitutional efforts to take guns from the good guys.
That formulation is misleading. He didn’t mean that there are two separate violations. “the 2nd and the 14th” is shorthand for “the 2nd as applied to the states by the 14th”.
Technically a state that bans guns isn’t violating the second amendment, because that doesn’t apply to the states. Likewise a state that bans newspapers isn’t violating the first amendment, a state that arrests people at random isn’t violating the fourth, and one that seizes property without compensation isn’t violating the fifth. None of the Bill of Rights amendments apply to the states, so they can’t violate them. What they’re violating is the 14th amendment, which says states can’t violate people’s rights, without saying what those are; the supreme court has since held that these unspecified rights include all the fundamental rights that the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government (but not the non-fundamental rights, such as trial by jury for lawsuits over $20).
But this is a mouthful, so for ease we speak simply of states violating the first or second or fifth or whichever amendment, with the 14th’s role taken as read; a court judgment wants to be a little more precise than that, but still not use a paragraph when a sentence will do, so it will say “the 1st/2nd/4th/whatever and the 14th”, and the reader is expected to understand what that means.
Stock response to all Leftists on this issue: So, go amend the Constitution. There is a process for that, so start it now. They will not so so, because they know they will lose in dramatic fashion. The most cogent argument they can come up with is summarized in Oberman’s final comment.
So you think the first amendment is absolute? No exceptions to the freedom of speech? So no laws against defamation, fraud, conspiracy, incitement, or threats?! And it overrode the copyright clause, so no laws protecting copyrights either?!
No, the first amendment is not absolute. Or, if you prefer, it is absolute, but the freedom it protects is not. There are exceptions to the freedom of speech and the press, exceptions that were always there from when that freedom was first recognized, and the first amendment absolutely protects only that somewhat-limited freedom. There was never a freedom to defame or defraud people, or to incite people to commit crimes, so laws banning these things don’t abridge the freedom of speech, and are therefore not forbidden by the first amendment. The accepted shorthand for that is that the amendment itself is not absolute.
And the same is true for all the other freedoms the constitution protects. None of them are absolute, they all have exceptions already built into them from before the constitution was written, and therefore its protections also have those exceptions.
Exactly what the exceptions are is a matter for the courts to figure out. The exceptions to the freedom of speech and of the press are well explored and known. There’s not much room for improvement. But since until recently the second amendment wasn’t being taken seriously, there hasn’t been much judicial research of its exact boundaries. The priority until now has been to establish that the right it protects is indeed a full-fledged fundamental right. Now that we’ve finally achieved that the courts will have to explore the odd cases on the boundary that might be exceptions. And they’ll have to do it the same way they do with the first, fourth, fifth, etc. — by looking at how the right was understood in the 1780s and 1860s.