Just an additional note on how reprehensible the disingenuous selective quoting of the statist left can be.
They need to lie to make their points,
especially when their point relies on prior Supreme Court opinions supposedly affirming their arguments.
Who can tell me what is profoundly, fundamentally wrong with the following statement (in reference to
Miller) contained in the brief's "
Summary of Argument"?
- "the Court agreed with the government that the “possession or use” of a firearm must “ha[ve] some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” to fall within the scope of the Second Amendment."
Quote from page 3 of the above referenced Amicus. Page 30 says:
- "That view was also adopted by this Court in Miller, which held that the Second Amendment does not protect the “possession or use” of a firearm unless such possession or use “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
Hint, the answer is found on page 12 of the brief (part 2 of Section B of the actual argument of the brief). . .