Its not that original intent, or these other things mean nothing to the court, its that they sometimes mean nothing to the court, or they sometimes mean little enough that other considerations override them, or that some justices don't seem to care much about them.
-----------
There are some real cases where the constitution itself is very obscure, at least in terms of how it applies to real world on the ground situations a couple of centuries later.
But this isn't one of them. You can't get much clearer than "shall not be infringed". Then the only question is what shall not be infringed, well that's "the right of the People to keep and bear arms".
"the people" in the constitution always refers to people, not states as representatives of the people.
The only real source of ambiguity is what is meant by "arms", but for most normal cases, single shot, multiple single shot (over/under, or side by side rifles, double barreled shotguns etc.), semi-auto, bolt-action or revolver action normal caliber handguns, carbines, rifles, and shotguns are "arms" (as are swords, knives, clubs, spears, bows, slings, etc.)
The question is how far beyond that it goes. It seems pretty clear that weapons of mass destruction, and crew served weapons don't apply, but what about grenade launchers, bolt action hand carried 20mm cannon, and light machine guns? It would seem to me that they should be included by the normal definition of the word, but to the extent the decision is a political compromise rather than the most strict application of the terms, I can accept restrictions on such things. |
