Leaving us free to postulate what the preamble is not.We know what the preamble is not - it's not operative language.
Do you have an explanation for what the second amendment preamble is?It's explanatory - providing one of the reasons for the operative language. When the language of the operative language is unclear, a preamble can be used to explicate that unclearness. But a preamble cannot be used to limit or restrict the operative text.
That was the accepted understanding of statutory construction at the time the 2nd was drafted. As proven by the precedents the brief cited.
Like I said - quality research.
You disagree? I'll tell you where to go with your disagreement. Go digging through 18th century court decisions, looking for contradictory precedents. Unless and until some are found, I'm going to have to consider this issue settled.
Lot's of luck.
Oh, it's settled for everyone but him. And he'll just regurgitate the same stupid question in a different form later.
I said it was "a clarification" previously and you pooh-poohed that. You say it's "explanatory". Fine. We'll use yours. I'm not in the mood.
So we agree. Just not on what it explains. I contend it explains when the right is protected.
You say it explains just one (of many) reasons to protect the right. Would you allow the U.S. Supreme Court such latitude? "Yes, we know it says interstate commerce, but that's only one of many types of commerce that Congress can regulate."