Re: What the heck did the Supreme Court do???

On Jun 26, 3:46=A0pm, Sarah Houston <SHo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I'm really puzzled by this Supreme Court ruling.
>
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State=
,
> THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
>
> They seem to have truncated the 2nd Amendment with the ruling, so it now
> means:
>
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State=
,
> THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. ( with "reasonable"
> regulations )
>
> or the equivalent of the useless:
>
> "the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence
> suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" - the English Bill
of
> Rights of 1689
>
> In fact the liberal Democrat socialists are now going right to work on
> ways to regulate it to the max.

All of the rights enumerated in the Constitution can be regulated to
an extent as long as they are not infringed.  That means for one thing
that the regulations must be reasonable and cannot be an undue
burden.  That must be decided by case law, but this is at least a
large step in the right direction.  The notion that it was a
"collective" right was pretty silly as well as dangerous.