On 2/18/2013 1:08 PM, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:00:11 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:07:06 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not, Gunner. You can have guns. In fact, you do.

Some guns yes. But in California..we are not allowed to have some
guns. Our rights are indeed Infringed.

Your opinion about that, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.

Scalia laid out plenty of examples in Heller that demonstrate the
historical meaning of the 2nd. They are explicit that it never meant
what you think, that limits and regulations were always a part of it.

--
Ed Huntress

It's huge, but well worth reading.

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm

The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment

[This is a DRAFT of an article that will appear in a symposium issue
of volume 18 of the St. Louis University Public Law Review.]

By David B. Kopel[1]

snip

We've been over this before. What Plimpton said.

What Kopel said.

What Kopel cited was /obiter dicta/ and dissenting opinions.

Also...nothing Kopel said supports the notion that the right to keep and
bear arms is unlimited.