View Single Post
Old March 18, 2009, 12:15 PM   #12
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,623
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
Is it de-coupling, or was the right ever inextricably tied to the prefatory clause?
It is decoupling. Here is a quote from U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976)

In Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971), this court held, in a case challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. App. ยง 1202(a)(1):
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.
This was the con law prior to Heller and if you read what the Brady's still say that is what the law should be. RKBA tied solely to service in the militia. Since the militia is defunct QED no RKBA. Now their view is defunct.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
Scalia is saying that, the first clause merely announces a purpose, and that the right was never solely dependent on the stated purpose.
Right, for the first time in our nation's history had the SCOTUS said such. That is why it is so huge.
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; March 18, 2009 at 12:15 PM. Reason: spelling
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Page generated in 0.03424 seconds with 7 queries