The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, or even, strictly speaking, about personal self defense. (These things were simply givens at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted.) No, the 2nd Amendment is a civic right. Its essence is the idea that the civilian population is to be as well armed as the standing army.
+1. The founders framed the Constitution and added the Bill of Rights shortly after fighting to defend against the tyranny of British rule. IMO, the Second Amendment was added to ensure against future threat of tyranny, foreign or domestic.
And the Supreme Court ruled in DC v Heller that this right extended to personal defense ALSO.
Our founders specifically chose
Constitutional Republic as form of government instead of Pure Democracy so the
will of the majority could not be imposed on the rights of the minority.
This is where we are.
The anti-gun majority is trying to impose their will and take away the gun rights of the minority. And justice Gorsuch already said the "originalist" Supreme Court will ENFORCE the Second Amendment along with all of the other amendments (I know, time will tell) -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...otus-in-the-new-session.857239/#post-11255390
And growing number of federal judges and courts are calling magazines "arms" -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/‘take-weapons-of-war-off-our-street’.858098/page-4#post-11275211
Judge Benitez did rule in
Duncan v Becerra that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "
arms" and in "
common use" and referenced Fyock v Sunnyvale which also stated large capacity magazines (15+ rounds per federal definition) qualify as "
arms for purposes of the Second Amendment" and in "
common use" -
https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf
"The district court in [
Fyock v. Sunnyvale], found that 'magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds are in common use, and are therefore not dangerous and unusual.' ... The district court found that the large capacity magazines qualify as 'arms' for purposes of the Second Amendment." and ruled with judgement concluding, "Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are 'arms.'"
why we're entitled to AR-15s and 30-round magazines.
Justice Scalia in
DC v Heller also used firearms in "common use" and application of the Second Amendment to modern types of firearms and ammunition storage devices just as the First Amendment applies to modern types of communication -
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
And in
Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court emphasized that, under
Heller, the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers -
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
So I can easily see "originalist" SCOTUS accepting "common use" of large capacity magazines as "arms" under the protection of the Second Amendment as modern types of "arms" along with semi-auto loading rifles and carbines for self protection.