Notes from the Resistance
“That is the focus I would bring to an amicus brief: establishing a constitutional principle that not only prevents ‘military’ characteristics from becoming a constitutional liability, but makes them an affirmative basis for protection.” [More]
The Framers put the prefatory clause in there for a reason.
Viramontes’s criticism of Bevis on this point carries little weight, given Heller’s holding that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes[.]” Id. at 625. Heller did not hold, as Viramontes seems to imply, that military-style weapons are protected “arms” because military action by civilians is lawful. Instead, Heller characterized self-defense as the “core lawful purpose” of firearm use. 554 U.S. at 630. [More]
I beg to differ. And have warned that ignoring the militia aspect would be used against us.
Funny, how a common prohibitionist argument is that 2A advocates ignore the first 13 words, and here it is they’re doing just that in their legal argument.
In any case, the amendment says “arms.” And as for the contention that its ban “finds support in this nation’s history and tradition,” tell that to Tench Coxe.
F-n’ lying Illinois Democrats…
[Via Jess]