"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Doesn't limit ANY Arms now does it?"
So I guess the words "well regulated" are meaningless.
Have you actually read the Heller decision? It doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Scalia specifically wrote that the government has the right to restrict the types of weapons if they are not being used for "lawful purpose". Is using a military-style weapon to massacre people a "lawful purpose"?
Until the 1970s, legal experts generally agreed that the 2nd Amendment did not guarantee private citizens the right to own a gun. The question only came before SCOTUS a couple of times before Heller, and each time SCOTUS sided with the government's power to regulate. The Heller case severed the previously held relationship of gun ownership to military service, but...
Scalia wrote in Heller: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." So yeah, specific types of arms can be limited. |