In writing the dissent over the recent Decision that struck down the D.C. gun ban, Justice John Paul Stevens posited:
that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He stated further that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Apparently Justice Stevens isn’t familiar with the wording of the 2nd Amendment, as the very last fourteen words of that Amendment say exactly what Justice Stevens claims there is no evidence of;
“...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He stated further that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Apparently Justice Stevens isn’t familiar with the wording of the 2nd Amendment, as the very last fourteen words of that Amendment say exactly what Justice Stevens claims there is no evidence of;
“...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
.
.
There's nothing to INTERPRET about ANY of the first ten Amendments (Our Bill of Rights). Most of them are quite clearly written and are NOT open to much interpretation. For those who'd wish to re-interpret those Amendments, it stands to reason that America's Founders own views (clearly spelled out in such documents as The Federalist Papers) make those abundantly clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment