Peter, thanks for the informative clarification. Obviously, if we had a say,
we'd dissent vehemently against the court's tenuous inference. The
ammosexual crowd can be glad we'll never be able to rule on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.
Held:
...
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. ...
|