The SCOTUS Heller decision everyone so highly praised included "reasonable restrictions" and will be used against the 2nd Amendment to the fullest.
The black robes have freedom of speech to communicate "their" beliefs, and the citizens have have freedom of speech to communicate theirs, except ours will be communicated via burning gun powder.
Shall Not Be Infringed.
Forget Heller as the Caetano Decision cleared up all the wishy washy Dicta in Heller.
Caetano is a short ruling and it's the one we need to focus on.
SCOTUS might turn on us but Caetano is the precedence we need to focus on, forget Heller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._MassachusettsI do have a solid Sheriff. Very Pro 2nd A.
the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]
The bolded allows and proves the original intent of the 2A, no restrictions for any “arms” is what they were saying. The citizens have a right to any “arms” they can use, “period”
And actually, the way it is worded, they left it open for even nuclear weapons, “
all instruments that constitute bearable arms”.
Surface to air, ICBM, planes, tanks, etc. Arms covers anything you can use to defend yourself or your nation. That was the beauty in the word “ARMS” the founders used. It covered everything to be invented in the future.
And the way they worded it, it means tax stamps for full auto and cans are illegal or having to pay for FFL transfer, etc. being it is illegal to tax a right.
