I agree. It is ridiculous that the basic meaning of the Second Amendment has not yet been settled by the Supreme Court.
|
| |
Written By:
David Shaughnessy
URL:
http://
|
|
The court doesn’t like drawing arbitrary lines, even though it has in the past. Obviously, it’s not going to rule an individual right to nuclear weapons. I suspect the meaning will come down to: a) accepting that it is an individual right to bear arms (not just state militias); and b) recognizing the ability of states to regulate how that right can be expressed, so long as the regulation is regional and doesn’t deny the basic principle that people can arm themselves in a way reasonable to assure self-defense and the legitimate pursuit of their affairs (hunting, gun collections, etc.) Such a ruling would not invalidate most existing gun laws, would put an end to efforts for absolute bans and acknowledge that the ’right to bear arms’ does not mean ’the right to any weapon that exists.’ |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|