HOLY ****!!

wrote in message
...

NOTE - This is what AP is quoting from the dissent. I have a copy, but
I haven't read the entire thing yet...

-- Begin AP quote:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer, wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200
years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to
elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He further writes that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

-- End AP quote
. . .
This could be among the most stunning opinions ever issued...

Non-Americans may need extra details to understand this.
It seems to have to do with the First Amendment "right to bear
arms" which specifies a "well-regulated militia." Judge
Stevens may be muddling together
(a) the means of regulating the militia well. I simply
do not know whether this means control of the militia
by elected politicians (civilians) or by professional soldiers.
(b) "civilian uses of weapons:" but a "well-regulated
militia" seems not to be "civilian uses of weapons."

This is why non-Americans need extra details to understand
the case or the ruling.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)