Or at least a clear reading of the Constitution of the United States makes it obvious that the Framers of the Constitution had two key concerns based on their experience as subjects of the British Crown during colonial days.

We see this in the order of the first ten amendments to the newly adopted Constitution of the United States of America.

The British colonial authorities did everything that they could do to suppress free speech. Then, as now in some quarters, opinions which were unfavored were suppressed with public censure, confiscation of materials, and in some cases imprisonment. The only form of mass communications back then was the written word. Whether expressed by speech or by printing press publications critical of the ruling authorities was suppressed when found.

The Framers saw this as such a threat that the First Amendment was written. It prohibited Congress from making laws prohibiting free speech, free expression of religions, and public demonstrations against government actions. Over the years, legislation and more importantly common law decisions have expanded the right from just the spoken and written word to radio, TV, telegraphs, moving pictures, the internet, and so on. None of those were foreseen by the Framers, but their intent was clear.

I’ve often said before that the Second Amendment is the shoulders upon which the First Amendment stands. The Framers knew that a free people could only remain free if they had the means to defend themselves against over eager government officials intent on shutting them up.

Several years ago Marko Kloos wrote “Why the Gun is Civilization” on his blog “The Munchkin Wrangler.” I can’t find the original post, however it’s been republished several times and it is available at https://www.corneredcat.com/article/ethical-questions/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

Here is in excerpt and I encourage you to read the entire not that long post.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

Personal defense against threats from any source is the basis of the Second Amendment. Not hunting, target practice, or competition self defense.

It is popular among critics of the Second Amendment to complain that the Framers never contemplated firearms other than those the existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Maybe, maybe not. History teaches us that technology advances and the world was on the very verge of what is known as the “Industrial Revolution.”

Which finally, almost 600 words in brings me to my point.

The current administration has launched an all out, unconstitutional assault on the Second Amendment. Following the Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYYRPA) v. Bruen ruled that New York’s law requiring a “proper cause” for issuance of a permit to carry a piston in public was contrary to the Second Amendment.

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for selfdefense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely
different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We
know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers
some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free
exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the
witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for selfdefense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens
with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment
of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

The Opinion of The Court was written brilliantly by Justice Thomas. One of the things that the decision does is remove the second class status of the Second Amendment. The entire opinion, along with the concurrence and dissent is worth taking the time to read.

In the wake of Bruen several states have enacted legislation in attempt to circumvent the rulings handed down. All of these laws are being challenged in various federal courts. None of them have been finally decided, but several have been decided at the district or circuit levels with mixed results.

One that is of much interest is Mock v. Garland. Mock is the name of the lead plaintiff, not what they are doing to Garland. Although it works either way.

On August 1 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi issued a ruling reversing a lower court ruling on a motion for an injunction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives (ATF) final rule on pistol braces. The order instructs the district court judge to reconsider the initial decision not to issue an injunction. Judge Willet of the Fifth Circuit issued a concurring opinion suggesting that this rule not only exceeds the authority of the ATF, but violates the Second Amendment as well.

It will take years for the courts to sort out the various state and federal laws, rules, and regulations regarding firearms, however I believe that much of the current framework will be found to violate the Second Amendment. At long last, the Second Amendment will take its place as a first class amendment.