THANK YOU BILL!!!!
My interpretation from reading was that the court was almost eager to take the due-process clause, while thinking the PorI clause would be rediculous(basically). Do you think the court is taking the easy way out here? They think this should happen, but they want to make sure it happens in a very controlled way? If they let PorI happen, then they open up a can of worms, people saying "It's my RIGHT to have a machine gun!" If they let due-process happen, the court can just say "You can't BAN handguns."
Am in interpreting this legal mumbo-jumbo correctly?
My interpretation from reading was that the court was almost eager to take the due-process clause, while thinking the PorI clause would be rediculous(basically). Do you think the court is taking the easy way out here? They think this should happen, but they want to make sure it happens in a very controlled way? If they let PorI happen, then they open up a can of worms, people saying "It's my RIGHT to have a machine gun!" If they let due-process happen, the court can just say "You can't BAN handguns."
Am in interpreting this legal mumbo-jumbo correctly?
Last edited: