"The library of Congress is hardly a 3rd party skippy."<quoted text>
The library of Congress is hardly a 3rd party skippy.
In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.
In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendments prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendments drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
Show me where the LOC was a principle in the DC vs Heller case sparky.
Once again...you're talking apples and oranges.
"Well-regulated" and the courts interpretation, that I have shown you, has NOTHING to with "regulations".
Well-regulated trained and disciplined in military arms, equipment and techniques
Regulation your point from the court; Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Your quote after what the court said is not exactly as stated;
It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
The court stated (Note #26, bottom of page 55);
26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
presumptively lawful meaning presumed to be lawful but is not in argument before the court and as they stated are identified only as examples.