4 ms·
It's not irrelevant, because it allows you to understand what words like "militia" and "well regulated" meant at the time. They don't mean what a casual reader
by briHass 10y ago
It's not irrelevant, because it allows you to understand what words like "militia" and "well regulated" meant at the time. They don't mean what a casual reader might think they do. The Supreme Court frequently goes back an looks at other historical records/writings of the time to dig into the real meaning of the words.
It really doesn't matter, because as Heller held, the first part of that sentence is the prefatory clause which doesn't limit or expand the scope of the actual, operative clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
- coldtea 10y ago>because as Heller held, the first part of that sentence is the prefatory clause which doesn't limit or expand the scope of the actual, operative clause Which is exactly the inverse of what it should be: the spirit of the law being above and adjusting the "operative" part.
- evgen 10y agoThe claim that the first clause is prefatory is some seriously contorted motivated reasoning on the part of the majority in the Heller case, and for those who would like to see what real historians think I would direct you to the amicus brief in that case from Rakove et al (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_...)