re: Conservatives getting back to historical interpretation of 2A

quote:

---

"The Second Amendment’s core is

---

How about beyond that "core" and into everyday use?

quote:

---

"the plaintiffs simply do not have the right” to carry arms for any sort of confrontation”

---

Who were the plaintiffs and what was the context of that statement?

Come and kill me...to take my guns...to save lives?

quote:

---

as in: ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

Who makes up "the people" in your mind?

This is lame. Even for you.

Heller opinion, written by Scalia: Limitations on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Second Amendment rights are not absolute, according to Scalia. Thus, the amendment does not grant the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose” (Heller., at 2816). Among “presumptively lawful” regulatory measures are laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, (3) forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or (2) impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. He adds that he could also find “support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” (Id., at 2816, 2817). In a footnote, Scalia says the list of presumptively lawful measures “does not purport to be exhaustive.”

That doesn’t say it’s limited to the home. At all. Additionally, the courts use of a handgun in the home was an example....not an exhaustive list. The term “such as” was used prior to describing home protection.

The Heller holding only specifically addresses handgun for self defense in the home. Dicta from Scalia addresses permissible regulations such as bans on concealed carry, etc.

quote:

---

Read Justice Scalia's Majority opinion in the Heller case. Handgun , for self defense, in the home.

---

You need to read it yourself, and do a better job of figuring out the proper context. The important part you left out, "such as...", means that the Heller case did NOT mean that to be the exclusive purpose. "Traditionally lawful purposes..." includes self-defense within the home but does not mean that is the only lawful purpose.

quote:

---

Shall not be infringed (by the feds) (nor by the states in matters of home defensee)

---

Except that is not what any of the Heller cases stated. Typical of the poorly educated, you have trouble putting simple words together into their proper context.

quote:

---

Except that is not what any of the Heller cases stated. Typical of the poorly educated, you have trouble putting simple words together into their proper context.

---

BMY hasn't realized that the Second Amendment hasn't had a ruling on scrutiny yet. I find it comical that these "I'm a supporter or the 2A but" crowd always seem to support every restriction possible.