[robertpaulsen]

"It's explanatory - providing one of the reasons for the operative language."

I said it was "a clarification" previously and you pooh-poohed that. You say it's "explanatory". Fine. We'll use yours. I'm not in the mood.

So we agree. Just not on what it explains. I contend it explains when the right is protected.

You say it explains just one (of many) reasons to protect the right. Would you allow the U.S. Supreme Court such latitude? "Yes, we know it says interstate commerce, but that's only one of many types of commerce that Congress can regulate."

[ctdonath2]

I contend it explains when the right is protected.

But that "when" is not part of the operative/enacting clause. There is no "when". There is no limiting phrase. It is a general right.

As one put it:

[G]eneral words in the enacting part, shall never be restrained by any words introducing that part; for it is no rule in the exposition of statutes to confine the general words of the enacting part to any particular words either introducing it, or to any such words even in the preamble itself.

Post #85 has a great deal more to say along those lines. Kindly address that material, instead of an empty "I disagree" with vapid/vague synopses.

[jdege]

“Interstate” is an adjective, not a subjunctive clause.

[MileHi]

It's merely a clarification of when those arms are protected.

I contend it explains when the right is protected.

And so you ASSERT ad nausium. But you never back it up. It is merely your poinion. You could be a judge. Decide how you WANT the law to be and then twist words and history to fit your own wishes.

[El Gato]

You say it explains just one (of many) reasons to protect the right. Would you allow the U.S. Supreme Court such latitude? "Yes, we know it says interstate commerce, but that's only one of many types of commerce that Congress can regulate."

The brief argues that the preamble does not restrict the operative clause. "interstate" does restrict/modify "commerce"

Although Congress is also given the power to regulate foreign commerce and commerce with the Indian nations. Congress has only those powers specifically delegated to it. They were only delegated the power to regulate those three types of commerce. Certainly not "intrastate commerce" nor "anything which affects" the commerce they have the power to regulate, since that would be pretty everything.

The two situation are not even comparable.

[El Gato]

Just not on what it explains. I contend it explains when the right is protected.

When? Nothing in the amendment indicates that the protection only applies at some times. Or did you mean "who"? Well the operative clause says "who". The preamble explains "why", that is: why the right of the people is protected by the Amendment.