But without applying strict scrutiny.
Fair enough. So we are left without clarity on the matter.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
But without applying strict scrutiny.
Exactly. The only time SCOTUS has ruled using strict scrutiny they have over turned the issue before the court. But the greater issue of defining "shall not be infringed" has never been brought before the court so Stare Decisis reigns. In previous cases the court has acted as if "shall not be infringed" was not absolute, so, Justice Scalia had no option but opine “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”Fair enough. So we are left without clarity on the matter.
That dictionary definition is irrelevant in US jurisprudence.
For example - you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.
Of course you can. If there is no fire you may be held liable both criminally and civilly, but you can still yell.For example - you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.
You can not legally year fire in a crowed theater - if there is no fireFor example - you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.