California's New CC Ruling

[Setter Man]

Originally Posted by John Campbell

For the sake of entertainment, let us revisit high school English/grammar:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is ONE sentence.
It contains three clauses.
It specifies a "militia" as being necessary for the security of a free State (the USA)
It specifies that militia should be well-regulated. As in not a free-wheeling mob.
It then connects the People with a specific RIGHT: The Right to "keep and bear arms."
It goes further in stating that this Right "shall not be infringed." In other words, limited.

What in God's name is there to "interpret" about any of that?

How ambiguous is this: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech?" I would wager that the 1st A has generated far more litigation than the 2nd A.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights have been litigated for 200+ years. That is one of the responsibilities of the Federal Courts. Anyone who doesn't understand that probably failed Civics 101 in high school. Mr. Day has made the point that the 2nd is no more clear than any other provision of the Constitution or Bill of Rights.