Yes, in terms of the weapon, not the person.Yes that is what it says. It does say that a weapon cannot be 18 inches or longer in length in order for it to constitute a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
However, it also says:
In other words, the Second Amendment must be viewed through the eyes of Article 1 Section 8, which only discusses the militia. It says that the Second Amendment was made with the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the militia.
The court in Stevens cited ONLY Miller, and offered no textual support FROM Miller for its assertion.And you’ve conveniently ignored the other cases that Stevens cited.
Miller does not say what they claimed it does.
Mrs. Ginsburg did a pretty good job of it herself, supra.“There is perhaps a misunderstanding that when you refer to a decision of [foreign courts] that you are using those as binding precedent,” Mrs. Ginsberg said. “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article from a professor?”
Mrs. Ginsberg argued the Supreme Court has lost standing in the international community by failing to integrate foreign decisions into its constitutional rulings. The court’s only female jurist noted the Canadian Supreme Court is “probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court” because “you will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”
“The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a close kinship to the view of the U.S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,” Mrs. Ginsberg said in a speech four years ago.
It’s not theory. I’ve given you actual examples of how these restrictions are applied. So please show me how they are not practical and don’t work.
No. But what I said should be abundantly clear. Dissents exist for a reason; I invite you to explore it.Majorities? Dissents are dissents for a reason, because the dissenter doesn’t hold the majority opinion. Are you saying that because not all judges on a panel agree on a decision, that they must be making stuff up?