Reply #306: except it's a bit more complicated then that. [View All]

[booley]

since the federal gov does have the constitutional power to restrict certain fire arms based on if they serve a military function in regards to the militia.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031900b.htm

So the well regulated militia part is still relevant. The right to bear arms just can't be restricted except that in some context's it can be. Since certain fire arms can be restricted.

We have to look at the whole body of law. Which was my point, we can't just cherry pick which parts we want to see and ignore the rest.

BTW, thank you for pointing out Cruikshank. I didn't know about it before.

Though the wording in regards to the 2nd amendment can be interpreted as saying that there are limits to what the gov can do in regards to fire arms. But then if we add miller, we can say there is a point where those limits end. And apparently determining that had something to do with the militia.

Again we have to look at everything. Since I am sure that the Judges who rule don Miller knew about Cruikshank

here's a link to the actual ruling btw. Your link to thew bill of rights, while nice, doesn't really add to this as we already know what the amendment says. No one is arguing the wording of that.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html