Justice Thomas had a recent decision on the 2nd Amendment, focusing on the need to have a documented historical basis for any regulations of gun ownership. This seems to be the latest version of "originalism" as a tool to interpret the Constitution.
I can understnad the perceived need for a standard of interpretation that seems to be objective, in the sense that it exists outside of the preferences of the justices. But as a failed historian I've reservations. My perception of American society in the late 1700's is it was still structured with family, religion, and hierarchy, not individuals pursuing their own destinies.
I'm reminded of my grandfather's memoir of his father, a Presbyterian minister in Illinois durin the 1840's-70's. One thing he did was visit each family associated with his church and examine the children to be sure they were being properly brought up, knew their bible, and were on the way to being good citizens of the US. I'm also reminded of another grandfather, a great great one, who was part of the founding of a Presbyterian church in upstate New York, outside Geneva at the beginning of the 19th century. He was the recording clerk for the session. The church was for many years the body which enforced the community's mores.
So I tend to believe that community norms and community pressure would have applied to gun ownership; those were impaired with mental problems, those who were irresponsible, those who weren't trusted with lethal weapons would have faced community sanctions.
