interesting article

[bossy22]

this is an article written by Eugene Volokh (a law professor at UCLA and host of the blog "the volokh conspiracy) about interpreting the second amendment. It discusses which method of scrutiny and in which cases should it be used. Very interesting. Read and form your own opinions

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2am.pdf

[X_Digger]

1. Whew! Good read. nt

[spin]

2. I found this part interesting...

Finally, some weapons bans might materially reduce various dangers to
law-abiding citizens. The most obvious example is the ban on private
possession of surface-to-air missiles. But this sort of ban would be
independently justifiable through a scope argument: The weapons are
certainly much more dangerous and uncommon than the machine guns and
short-barreled shotguns that Heller concluded were outside the scope of
arms. More broadly, it’s hard to imagine any such weapon that is unusually
dangerous but that would fit within the scope of arms as Heller defined it.
That, of course, leaves the normally dangerous weapons: handguns,
rifles, shotguns, and the like. The weapons are indeed dangerous, and some
people believe that entirely banning them will materially diminish the
danger of crime and death.

But as Heller correctly concluded, right to bear arms provisions embody
the judgment that the danger posed by private ownership of the normally
dangerous weapons is justified by the benefits of gun ownership for, among
other things, private self-defense. This is much like the constitutional
judgment that the danger posed by First-Amendment-protected speech
praising violence, or by criminals who are harder to catch as a result of the
Fourth Amendment or harder to prosecute as a result of the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments, are justified by the benefits that those constitutional
provisions yield. So it seems to me that if a weapon is within the scope of
arms, because it is not unusually dangerous, avoiding-danger arguments
can’t be used to justify bans on such weapons.