On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 10:40:10 PM UTC-4, !Jones wrote:
x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 30 May 2017 15:07:32 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
wrote:

It isn't. It's the same as a preamble. The written decision clearly
explains it.

I'm sorry. I would be willing to wager that you have never written
the term "prefatory" in your life save to copy and paste it here.
About the only time you ever see the word used is when someone is
apologizing for their preferred interpretation of the second
amendment. It's just not a word that is in common use today. I would
say: "preliminary" instead, I think.

However, I'm not arguing that it isn't prefatory; I'm saying that: "A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State..." doesn't form a clause in the English language and never has.
If you change it slightly to: "A well regulated Militia *is* necessary
to the security of a free State...", now it's a clause; put a comma
and the word "therefore" and continue with "the right of the
people..." and you have two clauses and probably what the authors were
trying to say.

I really don't think I changed it much; I changed "being" to "is" such
that it now has a verb; I also added the word "therefore"... or,
perhaps "consequently"; I have always liked: "ergo".

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free
state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed."

I think *that* would get past an editor.

People with some knowledge of law understand it. You...apparently neither.

That is what's known as "patronizing".

Jones

Did you read the full Heller case? Scalia handles this subject pretty well.

--
Ed Huntress