Why 27 Words of the Second Amendment
are Not Enough in a 2A Court Case
By Dean Weingarten. Aug 2, 2023
Related to a recent article about how Judge Roger T. Benitez is working hard on defending the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against numerous infringements created by the California government, a poster wrote:
Working hard.?? What is it, like twenty-seven words.?
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.
Many Second Amendment supporters feel similar frustrations. Sometimes the complaint is shortened to four words: ..."shall not be infringed"!
Perhaps the most famous case where a judge simply quoted the Second Amendment was the case of U.S. v Miller, brought to the Supreme Court in 1939 by the anti-Second Amendment Roosevelt administration with the connivance of the Roosevelt appointed anti-Second Amendment judge Heartsill Ragon. From a previous AmmoLand article:
Then in 1939, the Miller case was set up by Heartsill Ragon. Ragon was an anti-Second Amendment ideologue and a President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) ally appointed from Congress to the federal judgeship. The case went to the Supreme Court without opposing counsel or briefs. The Supreme Court refused to rule on whether a sawed-off shotgun (having not been presented with any evidence to the contrary) was an arm protected by the Second Amendment.
The problem with simply saying "What is it, like 27 words?' or "shall not be infringed" is the primary power of leftists/progressives has always been the power of controlling the language by insisting on their definitions and their interpretations of language.
..... 
