...I can't believe an elected official had the gall to say that in public...
I groaned when I read that too. If that wasn't an invitation for the court to step in, I don't know what is.
The funny thing is I agree with him. The Court should get involved and throw out every $%^#$ gun restriction law on the books.
But that is not where Fiengold was going here. He is suggesting the court should look at the collective vs indivdual argument, which is a non starter to anyone who understands what the 2nd Amendment is there for. It could not be any clearer.
Exactly. It is perfect as written and should not be open for interpretation.
As for all the $%^#$ gun restriction law on the books....all I can say is..."What part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?"