again I say: our 'rights' are often and sometimes methodically trampled. to argue it without massive financial and influential backing, you'd have to wait for the perfect 'set', akin to a surfer straddling a board and staring at the horizon for literally years, and while waiting for just the right sequence.
you'd have to have a sympathetic judge with more interest in right than political favor just to get it out of municipal court... you'd have to have most likely a law degree and pass a BAR exam in order to practice law, as paying an attorney to navigate the legalese would be too much burden for the lay person, especially considering the amount of time and dedication this effort would require.
but....
it isn't only the 2A stomped on. it's pretty much all of the BoR. at will they are stomped on. The BoR, if i understood what i believe to be the spirit after reading several books over the years concerning that convention- conceptualized the BoR, originally 12 iirc, as "Granted by virtue of birth, recognized and protected by the Constitution". That was the intent without qualifications.
@MCWTwerps, you may want to learn something about what you speak/type before doing so- you continue to demonstrate your ignorance. you likely wouldn't face as much opposition here as you do even if you continued disagreeing so long as your' commentary was accurate.
I'm not certain any of the Rights protected under the BoR has suffered as much scrutiny as the 2nd. They've attacked it by letter, by spirit, by comparing meanings of words over the ages compared to current, and read into it whole schemes that take more than a mental leap to believe. and... they continue to fail.
in complete honesty- i'm not even certain why there is a SCOTUS anymore. all there needs to be is someone who can translate to Spanish, French, German, Creole, Hebrew, and perhaps Farsi and Arabic for those who can't read or understand English.... I get the first 100 years of interpretation, and then again post CW... Slavery, Suffrage, and Civil Rights is the only good SCOTUS has done in alteration of the original document. further interpretation, by my reckoning, is about twisting to suit political purpose and in spite of the dramatic rise of this country and it's evident peak and subsequent fall, all on the 'interpretation' on an increasingly political gaggle of justices. If I were to remove the tongue from my cheek and make the above comment true by my own reckoning, I would offer that SCOTUS has done a good job of regulating during milestones of this nation- curtailing the robber barons to be one example... another to be somewhat restraining the rise and power of the tech barons. so their influence isn't just social- but economics as well. there comes a point, though, when they've reached to limits of their purpose. I'm thinking that is about now... stick AI in their place and let it determine what was meant and what was said (and reconcile the two) in the Constitution.
