Quote:
Originally posted by fastpat
]Again, it's not vague to me, nor to anyone that's made a study of the Amendment. I posted numerous scholarly articles from legal journals for your edification on the subject, none of them had the slightest trouble with the wording, and neither do I. It is my opinion that this means it's only vague to those without sufficient knowledge of the words contained in the amendment. What other cause could there be? The preponderance of scholarly work published in law journals supports my position, something on the order of over 40 or 50 works by law professors. Are you saying that they don't know "vague"?
|
I've read an equal amount of scholarly work published in law journals that support the other position, from professors to lawyers to historians. I even had a huge argument with the director of library services in my firm about this once, who is a lawyer (has to be for this type of position). I'm saying the clause, because it's vague, is subject to either interpretation.
Quote:
|
The only modern Second Amendment case, US vs. Miller 1938 , found the Second Amendment meant individual rights protections.
|
That rocks. Thank God the USSC in 1938 held up that position. It still doesn't mean the clause is clear, and can't be interpreted either way because of it's vagueness.