Posted: 2002-12-08 11:31am
Well that wasn't what it meant in the 18th century, that wasn't what it was intended to mean, and that isn't what the majority of Americans and most of our Appelate Courts think it means. The Supreme Court hasn't taken up the issue since the 30s, so we'll just have to see.C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
Or, it could mean that a well-regulated Militia is a prerequisite to having arms. This is the interpretation the California Supreme Court has used. And I think it's the smart one. This way certain guns, which have to legal purpose (civilian or military) can be banned. Also, the government can enforce certain limitation before gun ownership, like the ability to use a gun safely. Not currently stalking anyone. Not be fucking nuts.