Go read Heller and learn what a prefatory and operative clause pair are and what effects each has on the sentence as a whole.
Because the 2a restricts the federal government, and the 14th amendment spreads those restrictions to the states. So the only thing they would control would be punishment for malum in se acts IE things like assault or murder with a firearm.
I don't think the right to keep and bear arms should be abolished. A right that Trump violated when he refused transgender people their constitutional right to serve in the military.
Go read what a lawyer writes to learn about grammar? That's like telling somebody to read what a historian says to understand how to cure cancer. No! If you want to learn about grammar, read what linguists and philologists say. REAL experts on the topic. The links are on the OP.
Lawyers are required to learn how to write. The holding is also quoting various learned professionals whose sole purview is linguistics, both from the current day and with primers for same from the relevant time period. We've been through this. You're wrong.
You do not have a constitutional right to serve in the armed forces if you are not physically fit or mentally fit for service.
Hah! I don't usually respond to posts that are not serious. But I just had to come out and admit how much I love the way you jump every time I touch a nerve. I find it rewarding when I see this because I know you just learned something new that goes against your life-long dogma. Ok.... carry on...
Similarly, the people not have a right to serve in the militia - as such, the right of the people to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd, cannot be tied to service in the militia.
He knows how to write. You don't need to have a PhD in Linguistics to convey your thoughts in a written language. But you do need one if you're going to rule, as he did, based on linguistic arguments. And he just made them up! No!! That's exactly the problem. Scalia ignored the Amicus Briefs he received from the experts in linguistics and philology and made up his own pseudo-scientific arguments. Which have been debunked over and over again since then by the real experts AND, as this thread demonstrates, from references to every single document in existence that was written at the time.
Argument is a spectators sport. You don't convince your opponent, you convince those on the sidelines listening.
Part of what we're trained to do with writing is to pen statutes. You have to have a firm grasp of the rules of the language to do that. He did not make them up ffs, there are citations for each claim to grammar primers FROM the time of the founding and just after. Enough of this silliness.
But you have a "right" to own a firearm? Transgenders who Trump kicked out were in neither of those categories.
Yes you have the right to purchase or make one for yourself, not to be ISSUED ONE and participate in a military formation. They're mentally unfit to serve. Any that has had a surgery or takes hormones are also physically unfit to serve.
Correction, he ignored the bullshit leftwing briefs that tried to pretend that there was no individual right referenced in the second amendment-that it was a collective right only. Your opinion has been noted and found wanting in terms of factual support
Having a grasp on the rules of the language needed to write a statute is to linguistics as having a grasp on how to use a microwave to cook a great meal is to quantum mechanics. You may even know a bit about how it works, but you DO NOT know more than an authority on linguistics or philology. Now you're just making up nonsense. This "idea" of yours that the most prominent linguists and English philologists in the world would put their professional careers at risk because they don't want people to own guns (even though some of them are gun owners themselves)... And that an attorney knows more about the topic than them, just rebuts itself. I don't even need to make an argument. However, I DO make an argument. I SHOW my sources, quote them, explain their arguments, and link to the same tools they used, in case there is any doubt. ANYBODY can do their own research (the tools are free to use, and so are the databases) and check if the conclusions are sound. Does it not even raise a flag that there is nobody in the whole planet, who would like for it to be otherwise, has tried that and shown different results? Even if they don't use these tools, is it possible that NOBODY can come up with an example of "keep and bear arms" under the conditions used in the 2nd A and explained in the OP, that would rebut the experts' conclusion? YOU, on the other hand, are stuck with the argument "the attorney must know more than linguistic and philology experts about English grammar." The reader shall arrive at their own conclusion from those two arguments...
In what way are they mentally unfit to serve? I'm curious because not even Trump made that argument. I think the explanation for your statement is simple: you know nothing about the topic, and are just making up nonsense as you go. Just like you did when you tried to argue that an attorney knows more about linguistics and English philology than the world's leading experts.
In the way that they are afflicted with gender dysphoria such that the feel they need to chop bits off themselves, or take hormones. Serving in the military is about combat readiness. No one has a right to it. The sitting supreme court justices who wrote that decision, along with their clerks, had the input of various amici and other sources on point. They are referenced in the decision. Argue with those citations, don't argue with me.
If you can write them, you can read them. Good thing they cited various relevant sources on linguistics for those portions in any case then, no? Again: Go argue with the citations to the sources made in Heller, not with me. You're near 40 pages in to your 3rd or 4th repetition of this same bullshit concept you repeat in a serial format thread to thread. If you haven't read the case by now, please go do so now. I've shown my sources : Heller v. DC and the citations contained therein. You're free to read the case.
