Replies

If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of hand-guns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.

Did the Court really say this? If so, this struct me as possibly quite dangerous: If "needs ARE being met by elected public officials", the left will take this as permission to restrict such "enhancements" (private ownership).

I have not yet read the decision. So, I do not know how extensive the protection that it affords the 2nd Amendment against State infringement.

Did the Court really say this?

The first sentence of the paragraph was "Second, petitioners and many others who live in high-crime areas dispute the proposition that the Second Amendment right does not protect minorities and those lacking political clout." It was in the context of arguing against the opposition by using their position against them.

I posted it for the shot against the Chicago thugs.