It's still not necessary to qualify it that way. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stands on its own with the preceding sentence explaining Why.

Regardless of semantics, the Supreme Court has confirmed individual rights to bear arms in triplicate and that matter is settled.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Agree 100%.

[–] tastysnacks@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nothing is settled with this supreme court.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OK well go tell them about that and see what they have to say about it.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We really need to get them to review Harlow V Fitzgerald, and present them with the full text of section 1983 with the 16 missing words, as the 1871 Congress passed that law.

[–] Dick_Justice@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wtf. I just googled that. How has that been allowed to continue foe a hund and fifty fucking years?? Jesus H. Christ.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well the case I referenced occurred in 1982, but I think it was mainly because no one took the time to look at the Congressional Record, and compare it to the text in the Federal Register.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know much about that, but if that would get rid of qualified immunity for police then I concur.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's the case that caused QI in 1982. The 16 missing words explicitly outlaw any sort of immunity for any government officials.