CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS

Semi-automatic rifles

July 24, 2026

RE: Semi-Automatic Rifles and the 2d Amendment

The State of Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois have enacted laws that basically ban the private possession of semi-automatic rifles capable of firing multiple rounds without rearming or reloading. The United States Supreme Court has now agreed to decide whether those laws violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.[1] The Second Amendment provides… Continue reading

Constitutional Law

Semi-automatic rifles, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

ABOUT THIS SITE

In the case of Marbury v. Madison, Vol.5 U.S. Reports, p.137 (1803), the United States Supreme Court ruled that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void.” 5 U.S. at p.180. The Court based that ruling on arguments made by one of the original Constitution’s draftsmen, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No.78 (published in 1788). Hamilton argued that the document he was then promoting to become the federal “Constitution” would require the “courts” . . . “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” In other words, Hamilton, and later the Supreme Court argued that whenever the text or the purpose of an ordinary law irreconcilably contradicts the text or the clear purpose of the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail and the subordinate law must be declared void. Today, the members of the Supreme Court, whether they are labeled “liberal” or “conservative,” do not seem to adhere to these simple rules of interpretation. At this site, I will try to show how Constitutional Law cases should be decided under them. Supporting and opposing comments are welcome, as long as they are relevant and civil.

Dan D. Rhea

Semi-automatic rifles

RE: Semi-Automatic Rifles and the 2d Amendment