"A limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid…"
-Alexander Hamilton.
Our Republic's founders rightfully agreed that the Federal Government's sole purpose and duties were to uphold the directives of the Constitution. To reinforce the natural abilities bestowed upon citizens of moral stature. Violent criminals - including rapists - faced capital punishment, period. English maritime and common law facilitated the American Judiciary system.
The first session of the First United States Congress established the federal judiciary of the United States. The Act of 1789, Article III, section 1of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. A separate federal judiciary had been heatedly debated during the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists criticized such judicial power as a potential contrivance of tyranny. Regardless of the Bill of Rights ratification, some opponents of a strong judiciary urged that the federal court system be constrained to a Supreme Court and conceivably local admiralty judges. Congress, however, decided to establish a system of federal trial courts with broader jurisdiction, thereby creating an arm for enforcement of national laws within each state. Bear in mind that the Bill of Rights contains five Amendments that address judiciary proceedings.
The final word, Ultima Verba, is the Supreme Court's entitlement. The heirs and heiresses of the Constitution, upon their oath to be upheld without bias. The moral conviction of character pertinent in becoming a "Justice" is adjudicated by the Senate, checks and balances of equal persuasion. 1789 Federalist v. Anti-Federalists, 2022 liberal v. conservative. How does one gain conviction without bias considering that humans are the direct result of environment and experience? Experiences differ and the environment is in constant flux, judiciary rulings ebb and flow.
United States v. Cruickshank 92 U.S. 542 1875, SCOTUS ruled the application of the First and Second Amendments "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government” - Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 1886, related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the government in time of collective need. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 1939, The Court stated in part: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly, it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 2008, The Court ruled the Second Amendment to reference an individual right, citing, "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
McDonald v. City of Chicago 542 U.S. 742 2010, The Court ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Caetano v. Massachusetts, No. 14-10078, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) (per curiam) - The Court ruled that the Second Amendment extends to all forms of bearable arms, "The Court has held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States."
The Caetano ruling may have originated from the usage of a "stun gun," however the specific wording along with Heller and McDonald references are extremely important to pending Supreme Court cases. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Docket 20-843, has petitioned The Court to determine whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. The Court ebbing with Cruickshank and Miller. Flowing after Heller and McDonald, yet only addressing firearms and one's home. NYSRPA II may finally address the natural ability of self-defense outside one's home. Furthermore, gun rights advocates are hopeful this will be a precedent for "permit-less carry" or Constitutional Carry.
Ever more hopeful is Bianchi v. Frosh and the Amicus Brief filed to The Court on February 14th, 2022. At the core, Bianchi is a federal lawsuit challenging Maryland’s "Assault Weapons" ban as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
"The Second Circuit employed an especially unfavorable version of intermediate scrutiny that considers only the government’s evidence, and that does not consider less restrictive alternatives. The First Circuit second-guessed law-abiding citizens’ personal choices of common defensive arms. All four of this Court’s Second Amendment precedents on arms bans—Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Miller—eschewed means-ends balancing. This Court’s approach has always been categorial. The rifles at issue here are “in common use,” as lower courts have acknowledged. “Common use” is not determined by how often a gun is fired in self-defense. “Common use” encompasses all lawful uses, including hunting and self-defense. Arms bans do not become constitutional if they slice protected classes of arms into smaller subclasses. Dick Heller’s 9-shot .22 caliber revolver was not particularly common, but handguns are very common."
"We cannot be free, without being secure in our property … we cannot be secure in our property, if, without our consent, others may, as by right, take it away…"
-John Dickinson
Ultima Verba