Because they want to maintain continuity with older rulings and lower rulings where possible, as well as allow flexibility for future courts.
The 2nd amendment is NOT "clearly defined" unless you believe that DWI felons should be allowed to own full-auto 50 cal ma dueces on the trunk of their car to keep the cops in check. Like the "shouting fire" restriction on the 1st Amendment....once you make certain restrictions on the 2nd amendment, then everything gets complicated.
Since I’m a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record, would I be able to own a Ma Deuce mounted on a truck?
You can limit felons, the mentally ill, and similar persons without putting restrictions on the Second Amendment. Under the Fourth Amendment, these INDIVIDUALS may be denied the liberty of possessing arms under due process of law. The rights of the many should not be abrogated because the actions of a few.
Sure is.
Those other factors are neatly taken care of in other amendments; all are valid in coexistence.
sorry to disagree with you....the purpose of the second amendment is to allow the citizens the ability to overthrow a rogue or out of control government....therefore it is the duty of every citizens of the US to own and possess any weapon the military has in it’s arsenel, including automatic weapons, rockets, etc. during the revolution, private citizens owned and operated warships.....see tagline
i always hated the shouting fire argument for the restrictions on the first...
if people do not take responsibility and realize they are not in imminent danger from smoke or heat... then why restrict it...
yes the shouter should be allowed... call him a liar and hold him responsible for damages, but calmer minds would prevail...
teeman