Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
it did so by protecting the rights of the people (who comprised the militia).
No I think the preferatory clause protected the right of the state to arm the militia (so the Feds couldn't disarm it) and that the operative clause protects the right of individuals to bear arms in their own personal self defense.
|
The preferatory clause is simply an explanation of the purpose of the operative clause. The preferatory clause in and of itself protects nothing.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
Again, how would you characterize the capacity in which citizens would serve, such as the ones mentioned in the Nordyke opinion, when defending the country against foreign invaders, as described by the court?
I wouldn't characterize the capacity at all. Since the advent of nuclear weapons, our possession of them has made such a foreign invasion impossible. We will not fight an enemy of the United States with a militia but a standing army, and navy (or air force).
|
Circuit Judge Gould would seem to disagree in his concurring
Nordyke opinion.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20/0715763.pdf
Quote:
The salient policies underlying the protection of the right to
bear arms are of inestimable importance. The right to bear
arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be
4508 NORDYKE v. KING
overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone
can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist
attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country
covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then
assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed
populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes
it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in
an attack on any community before more professional forces
arrived.1 Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against
the possibility that even our own government could degenerate
into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility
should be guarded against with individual diligence.
|