Playboypenguin
Moderator
This is exactly what I have been saying for years.from the opinion:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose.
_____________________________________________________________________________a quote from one of my earlier posts:
IMHO, they were saying "because we need this, we do not want to do anything that might be misused and cause this to not be possible in the future." I do not think they were saying "guns are only allowed for militia members" so it really does not matter what form the militia takes since it was merely a reason for the right and not a condition on it.
I also completely agree with the idea that the right, like most rights, is not unlimited.
This pretty much says that some restrictions are allowed as long as the principle is not compromised. I have always agreed with restrictions on felons, mentally ill, and non-citizens owning firearms. I also agree that a person should not be allowed to produce high explosives in mass quantities or drive down the street with M2's mounted on their hood.from the opinion:
Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s
right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v.
Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the
Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry
arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read
the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
Even though I despise Scalia, this seems to be one instance where we are in complete agreement.
Looks like this is one time where he sided with liberals like myself.