At the point that a document was signed by the creators that meaning became constitution or law. Later, many others may analyze it and assign their conclusions a name, such as originalist or textualist (which now carry more meaning than the simple english word from which the name stems). At that point we are one step removed from the original meaning. I don't mind understanding other's opinions but am careful not to use a broad meaning assigned by others as it may change over time and may be too broad to function as a stable reference. Of course, certain knowledge may have changed over time. An original meaning may have to be altered when we find that the earth is spherical rather than flat. Most 2nd Amendment (or state constitution equivalent) meaning is still the same as before. Should new technology change the function of the 2nd Amendment then the nation should amend the Constitution to reflect their concerns. Until then, the meaning remains the same.
It would be interesting to reverse today's catch phrases used to infringe on that original meaning in the 2nd Amendment and equivalent. For instance, some of the argument around restrictions on the bearing of arms lies in the use of the term "public place". Various government sectors have decided that they are not a public place and so the people can not carry their weapon there. Well, if the people have a need to be in that place, then their carrying of a weapon would be protected by the 2nd Amendment or equivalent. For instance, my county board of supervisors will most likely object to me carrying my weapon in their monthly public meeting room. They would say that their meeting room is not a public place. But I have a need to be there to comment on the ever increasing tax rate that I must pay, thus my weapon is protected by Article 3, Section 12 of the Mississippi Constitution or the 2nd Amendment delivered through the 14th Amendment Federally. Another taboo is the public school. If one needs to talk to a teacher or attend a school meeting concerning their children, then the weapon is protected by the 2nd Amendment, etcetera. So who created the "public place" phrase and why? Likely, since it is not included in the Constitution, it was created as a way to address a perceived need. That need might address the horror of seeing a weapon in a modern school where we have had many shootings. Once these tragedies get the public attention, the Constitution and Law and the words and meanings they were created from, go out the window. This misuse of Constitution and Law results because our society chooses to change the meaning of those documents rather than the words. Ask any opponent of the 2nd Amendment what they think it really says. They will answer you with words other than those that the 2nd Amendment contains. Then ask them why the don't just raise the support required to amend the Constitution and put their words in it. The answer will be that they can not raise that support. Thus the intent of the creators has succeeded in that the meaning remains as it was written until an substantial effort is made to change it. The only way that this intent can fail is if we people allow the meaning to be changed without the words. So here we are today where liberal judges do just that and we allow them.
HLB
It would be interesting to reverse today's catch phrases used to infringe on that original meaning in the 2nd Amendment and equivalent. For instance, some of the argument around restrictions on the bearing of arms lies in the use of the term "public place". Various government sectors have decided that they are not a public place and so the people can not carry their weapon there. Well, if the people have a need to be in that place, then their carrying of a weapon would be protected by the 2nd Amendment or equivalent. For instance, my county board of supervisors will most likely object to me carrying my weapon in their monthly public meeting room. They would say that their meeting room is not a public place. But I have a need to be there to comment on the ever increasing tax rate that I must pay, thus my weapon is protected by Article 3, Section 12 of the Mississippi Constitution or the 2nd Amendment delivered through the 14th Amendment Federally. Another taboo is the public school. If one needs to talk to a teacher or attend a school meeting concerning their children, then the weapon is protected by the 2nd Amendment, etcetera. So who created the "public place" phrase and why? Likely, since it is not included in the Constitution, it was created as a way to address a perceived need. That need might address the horror of seeing a weapon in a modern school where we have had many shootings. Once these tragedies get the public attention, the Constitution and Law and the words and meanings they were created from, go out the window. This misuse of Constitution and Law results because our society chooses to change the meaning of those documents rather than the words. Ask any opponent of the 2nd Amendment what they think it really says. They will answer you with words other than those that the 2nd Amendment contains. Then ask them why the don't just raise the support required to amend the Constitution and put their words in it. The answer will be that they can not raise that support. Thus the intent of the creators has succeeded in that the meaning remains as it was written until an substantial effort is made to change it. The only way that this intent can fail is if we people allow the meaning to be changed without the words. So here we are today where liberal judges do just that and we allow them.
HLB