Agreed. “Arms” is used without limitation. “...shall not be infringed” makes it clear: no limitation. The prefatory clause, insofar as it helps one understand the breadth of the operative clause (which Heller makes clear is not to be limited) clarifies that yes, indeed, military-specific arms are included.
As wonderful as Heller’s petition is, to survive it is setting up some boundaries that we will later have to overcome with non-trivial difficulty.
I agree completely. I have been thinking throughout reading this entire brief (having once worked in the legal field myself, and, I must say, for a most excellent attorney...he wrote excellent legal briefs himself, well-argued, compelling, articulate, etc., etc.)... this particular brief is outstanding, well-written, logical, expertly argued, concise, free of grammar errors, and appears to cover every single type of argument that plaintiffs could possibly position themselves to counter....they will have a most difficult time justifying their reasoning against such a persuasive brief. And this court, if it chooses to weasel out of addressing the various, well-argued and valid points raised, do so at our nation's peril.