The #2A safeguards our God-given right to self-defense in AND outside our homes-It's not a 2d class right. That’s why I'm leading 23 states urging #SCOTUS to take up the most important #2A case since Heller & uphold the #2A's original meaning @NRA

https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2021/02/02/missouri-attorney-general-arizona-attorney-general-lead-23-state-amicus-brief-challenging-subjective-issue-firearm-permitting-in-supreme-court-case
THREAD

Right now several states including NY require individuals who wish to protect themselves outside the home to “demonstrate a special need for self protection.” This is a sham and antithetical to the right of self-defense protected by the #2A & should be declared unconstitutional.

In 2008, #SCOTUS recognized the original meaning of #2A includes the right of law-abiding citizens to keep & bear weapons in self-defense. Many lower Cts ignored the orig meaning & adopted an “interest-balancing” test that allows states to encroach on this fundamental right.

These courts favor a sense of security over liberty. This is backwards - liberty ensures security.
The Founding generation knew this all too well& they enshrined the #2A right to bear arms in the Constitution to keep it safe, not just from kings but legislatures as well. @NRAILA

The Founders viewed the right to self-defense as a natural right that was inalienable and predated the Constitution that is necessary for our system of “ordered liberty” #2A

The #2A protects the “core lawful purpose of self-defense. Permitting government actors to determine who has “good cause” to exercise a fundamental right contradicts the #2A’s original public meaning.

The right to bear arms predates our written Constitution & the #2A’s text indicates it is not a right GRANTED by the Constitution but rather one PROTECTED by it.