case law already settled that 2a is not about merely sport hunting.
[[case law already settled that 2a is not about merely sport hunting.]]
Based on that ruling, the case mentioned in this article should be overturned as it seems that this was the criteria used by the judge to allow the ban to stand- The 2n’d A is about self protection, not sporting events- This judge had no right defying the supreme court’s decision on the matter-
>>case law already settled that 2a is not about merely sport hunting.<<
Actually it’s about the constitutionally recognized right of all citizens to keep and bear arms for purposes of resisting when warranted, the forced abrogation of that and other rights by any individual, organization, or government — INCLUDING COURTS AND JUDGES.
>
case law already settled that 2a is not about merely sport hunting.
>
The point is immaterial and moot.
The plain English of the 2nd, along w/ Federalism denies govt from even broaching the subject.
Miller started it all w/ the Courts ignorance of ‘trench sweepers’ (IOW: could be banned ‘cause they WEREN’T weapons of war). Now, the Courts\Legis. flip 180 to say “Sure we can ban. These ARE weapons of war.”
The last 4 words of the Amendment are only touched upon once, and never more. He cites case upon case upon case (all ‘recent’, I didn’t find any prior to 1900’s), but NEVER the (anti)Federalist Papers, etc.