Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding...
Shall not be infringed.
You get a C-. Try harder next time.
>> Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding...
The State angle is in a way irrelevant in the sense it cannot defy the essence and spirit of the 2nd Amendment. The issue concerns the extent of the 2nd Amendment.
I inferred from Scalia’s remarks that the Constitution does not grant limitless use of weapons for any purpose. His ironically use of the term “reasonable” is applicable and satisfies the concern of the right to bear arms. This is not, however, the Commie-Leftwing-Mofu gun-grabbing argument!
It was either in the C-SPAN or FNC interview where Scalia made reference to the menacing head axe, and the “reasonable” interest of the state to ban such displays. Regardless of the weapon, his point concerns the States’ “unrestrained” choice to manage abusive use of weapons. If he mentioned the term “guns”, it was for exhibit only. And of course, we understand that “unrestrained” means that which is not restrained; that is, the 2nd restrains the choices the States have to restrict weaponry.