TexasCHLforum.com

jerry_r60 wrote:

Dreamer42 wrote:The original language of the period defines "regulated" as being able to march, knowing the manual of arms, follow orders, readiness, structure of a military command - officers, enlisted, etc. It does not mean regulated in terms of controlled or maintained by a state or federal government like we think of today.
- Dreamer42

I recall watching Antonin Scalia on fox discuss limits to the 2A. He basicly said some of the modern restriction attempts remain to be tested. With that said, he did leave a door open for some limitation. Using the text of the amendment he mentioned limiting guns to what you can carry as an example since the text reads "keep and bear". He also cited a tort on the books at the time called a "frightening". This prevented people walking around with an unusually scary weapon. I could see this concept being pushed in modern times.

I've put a link to the full interview. The whole thing is good and has been linked here before. The begining covers approaches taken to interpreting/applying the constitution. The 2A talk comes about 6:57.

http://therightscoop.com/full-interview ... ws-sunday/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oldgringo wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Lately I have been thinking that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is there to ensure that the militia is well regulated. IOW, that the general population, properly armed, would keep the militia in line.

Following that line of thought, now comes the 3rd Amendment, eh?