Petitioner’s Brief for McDonald v. Chicago
Misleading title. There can’t be any anti-RKBA “experts”, because the Constitution is clear on that right. There are lying gun-grabbers, but no “experts”.
I would like to add that if “Scary-looking” becomes some sort of standard of illegality, Frau Botox should start getting worried.
The Constitution of the United States . . . provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But this restriction is . . . a restriction upon the power of the United States alone, and gave to James Lewis no protection against the law of Mississippi, which deprived him, because of his color, of a right which every white man possessed.
Mr. Browning’s Letter and Judge Handy’s Decision, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 28, 1866, at 4, col. 1; see discussion, supra, at 14.
From document page 38, my pdf page 56 of 91, from Gura's Petitioner’s Brief for McDonald v. Chicago, linked in comment# 1.
One notes that the 2nd Amendment does NOT say ,
“...,the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms...”.
As if the Constitution was about what individulas can or cannot do. It's about how the federal government is organized, what its powers are, what it's relationship to the states is, and what the states are forbidden from doing.
It would be much more accurate to say that the Gura said that the Constitution protects the individual ownership of scary looking semi-automatic firearms. (Of course in reality it protects the ownership (keeping) of arms of all sorts. Swords, axes, firearms, and cannon armed ships. (That can be verified by reference to the power of Congress to grant letters of marque, which authorized people to use their privately owned ships to attack ships of enemy powers, and seize their cargoes, which would not make much sense if individuals, or groups, could not own such ships. One did not need the letter to own the ships or the cannon to arm them with, just to use them in a form of legalized piracy.)