More in a moment.
We can stand down the celebrating, Scalia gives it all away:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
. . .
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. . . . It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Dammit, Scalia, how am I supposed to defend my family when Obama’s New World Order troops come calling??
Happiness is a Warm Stockpile.
You’re as wrong about this as you were about the significance of Miller in the first place.
But I’m too busy high-fiving to care at the moment.
Slash is right. Scalia giveth and Scalia taketh away. He may simply have given gun control advocates a more constitutionally sound basis for banning some types of guns and limiting gun sales. But it’s pretty clear the Second Amendment gives you an individual right to own a 1780’s-era musket.
Now you’re reading stuff into it, Clown.
Angryclown isn’t reading stuff in. Angryclown is simply reading. Try the same and get back. Methinks your elation will fade.
You must be logged in to post a comment.