Quote:
Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms ...
|
That is an interesting construction. Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?
Quote:
Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation that is reasoned, plausible and articulated?
|
I am observing that not
every proposed curtailment, infringement, abrogation or abridgement is based on an articulated, reasoned and plausible principle.
Military weapons are full auto, and I don't trust civilians to have military weapons is not a principled objection to civilian possession of FA rifles. We know that the services also use semi-automatic weapons.
Civilians shouldn't have FA arms because in a civilian circumstance one is responsible for where each round lands can't be reconciled with civilian possession of shotguns, or with the fact that a fully automatic firing mechanism doesn't rob an arm of it ability to be aimed.
But someone I don't like might try to buy one is not a basis for principled restriction of FA arms, since we aren't happy when someone we dislike obtains
any kind of weapon.
If the limitation you propose reduces to
I would prefer the right not be extended to someone because I have no confidence they would exercise it prudently, then you have not described a principled limitation on a right, and have treated it not as a right, but a privilege to be extended politically to those who can muster the votes. In that respect, the analysis does not differ from Brady's, even where the conclusion does.