The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. [More]No cite for that, Jeffrey?
Just because you say so?
Gosh, if only you'd been around to tell Chief Justice Taney he had nothing to worry about in Dred Scott when he fretted that if blacks "were entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens ... it would give them the full liberty ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
I guess that's why you're an important writer published in The Atlantic.
Because they've always adhered to such high standards.
the article is a year and a half old, though a lot of the comments on it are new.
ReplyDelete