Daniel: Okay, let's party!
1.)The well- regulated militia is adduced as a reason for people to have the right to bear arms, not as a pre- condition for being armed. It therefore does not affect the negative injunction against infringing on the right.
2.)The reference is obviously enough to personal fire- arms, such as may have evolved out of the musket and flintlocks of the time. I agree, however, that there may be an argument against semi- automatics as well as automatics, and that the matter is therefore subject to litigation.
3.)You are perfectly right that there is a well established procedure for resolving disputes in interpretation of the Constitution, and that the "rule of law" demands that we abide by the settled judgement of the Court. However, that does not preclude revisiting questions in future sessions, nor amending the Constitution in rare instances, and therefore some issues are not settled once and for all. Few issues are, or should be, in that category, however.
Looking over this, I still have found relatively little to object to... |
