"defence of themselves" is a pretty broad area.
Doesn't matter because the constitutional originalist PoV is based on the intent of right when it was written. The intent absolutely and irrevocably to defend from an invading army which is why militias are explicitly mentioned. Anything else is not an constitutional originalist interpretation.
it would probably fail constitutionally to not allow a firearm to leave the home
True, you never know when an invading force is going to arrive but you can.
For example taking it to a firing range for practice. To keep oneself "well regulated".
No. You have no right to fire it if you are not defending yourself against an invading force. It is militias that are well regulated, not the general public. Given the threat was perceived to be a federal force, It is up to states to determine what constitutes a militia.
Besides fending off invaders at the home level and the state/national level, militias were also used to suppress riots, engaged in some law enforcement activities, etc. So "defense of others" becomes an issue, and is generally recognized by state statues as equivalent to "defense of self".
Not the intent of the right granted by the founders and thus not a constitutional originalist interpretation.
Nope, the Supreme Court has ruled on that and the decision is a cautionary tale for anti-gun folks who want to pursue that path.
I'm perfectly aware of this and that means that the so-called constitutional originalists are full of shit because this does not follow the intent of the founding fathers when it was written. So yeah, everyone relying on constitutional originalism to justify the large scale deployment of unfettered firearms can shove it.
Considering an federal invading force would easily take out targets using drone strikes that an armed resistance would never see coming, it's absolutely antiquated. You might as well be ants against a kid with a magnifying glass. I've heard excuses for this but none of them can actually dispute their own impotence against drone strikes.
That is not what various judges are claiming in NY State. Rather some are saying their hands are tied.
I'm certain it's happened in a few cases but recall it's been amended several times to address the unforeseen circumstances that inevitably would arise from such a large change.
"Last year, the FBI also switched over to a new police report system called the National Incident-Based Reporting System or NIBRS, and not all police agencies have adopted it.
That's only the FBI. You do know that NY has it's own crime reporting system, right?
"Biden Delivers Road Map to Electrify Long-Haul Trucking Routes"
Indeed, they are encouraging development to transition to BEVs but it's not a mandate. The next step is most likely hybrid EVs which could take advantage of charging stations. That said, the free market can go another direction entirely if it finds something cheaper.
With government mandates and time lines it is not a free market.
It's not a mandate to make anything, it's regulation which creates a market force. This is literally how regulation works.
Free market include consumer voluntary buy-in, not coerced government purchases.
Truck buyers are not being forced to buy the new trucks. They could literally never buy another truck again and there's nothing to stop them but themselves.
True, science, engineering, and economics take time. That is the problem. Politicians are fantasizing that they can alter the necessary time through dictate.
Not through dictate but through financial incentive.
Again, when science, engineering and economics cannot deliver a solution yet there is no alternative to purchase.
Since it's literally possible to build these machines, economics is the only issue which left to the free market decide.
Government mandate is not a market force.
This government regulation absolutely is a market force because the government is not dictating which goods people buy or even the prices of them. What they are doing is limiting what is allowed to be sold on the free market. You might as well rage at the fact that they won't allow the sale of leaded gasoline.
As deadlines approach the deadlines will be changed or extended. For example the California 2035 mandate for EVs will probably turn into a 2035 tax on ICE, and/or a postponement to 2040 something.
This is entirely possible because projected timelines don't always align with scientific/engineering progress. If they didn't make adjustments then it would be a dictate.
Do you really imagine there is additional land available for increased rail capacity to displace long haul trucking? That it can be simply acquired? It a rapid manner?
If the price is right, yep.
That is terribly inefficient [short haul EV displacing long haul diesel]
Actually, it's quite the opposite since the energy expenditures are more centralized.
No it is not, long haul needs are very different than passenger vehicle needs.
You misunderstood my comment. I was talking about the combined use of trains and short haul trucks. Effectively, trucks taking stuff to and from train yards and trains doing to majority of transport. The energy expenditures are more centralized as the trains do the most work instead of a fully decentralized fleet of trucks.
Manufacturing plants need raw material inputs. And we are approaching the limits for raw materials that can be attained via ethical mining.
According to who/what?
Or are you OK with turning various regions of the world into toxic wastelands, as China is doing with Mongolia?
They being turned into wastelands in order to do the extraction cheaper. Not even like a lot cheaper, only slightly cheaper. However, the mining of REs (which aren't actually all that rare) has radically expanded since 2010 when China decided to use REs to coerce Japan.
I have quite a good grasp in science, engineering, and economics.
That is a determination best made by people that are not yourself.