In response to a question of whether the people decide subjectively what they deem appropriate for self-defense, New Jersey argued that “the people” through their representatives decide what is unusually dangerous based on their perception of “objective characteristics.” As one judge suggested, since all firearms are dangerous under the alleged dangerous-or-unusual test, no limit would exist on what the legislature may choose to ban, despite what the people choose. [More]
Look at all the contortions these robed Democrats go through to obfuscate the unambiguous clarity of “shall not be infringed.”
How many horses and hounds may I keep, again…?
[Via Michael G]
“… no limit would exist on what the legislature may choose to ban, despite what the people choose. ”
Yet when someone on our side dares to mention “Second Amendment remedies” the hand wringing, pearl clutching, and hyperventilating reaches truly astronomical levels.
My interpretation is that they very well know that there is a limit and they don’t like it one teeny tiny little bit.