Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote may be crucial to the outcome of the case, disagreed. The purpose of the first clause, with its militia reference, was simply to "reaffirm the right to have a militia," he said, while the second made clear that individuals had the right to own guns.
In his questions throughout the argument, Justice Kennedy insisted that the amendment’s framers wanted to assure the ability of “the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that,” as he phrased his concern with self-defense at one point.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the deciding vote on the divided court, was next. "In my view," he said, "there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."
Kennedy expressed, at least three times during the argument, his disbelief that the Framers had not been also concerned about the ability of "the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."
Anyway you get the point.
While I am happy that Justice Kennedy has joined the side of the angels in this case I am also a little pissed that he has ruined my Limbaughesque accuracy rate of 99.989999999%. Damn You Sir, Damn You to Hell.
The Oral Arguments are online somewhere so I will see if I can post a link.
One of the other voices that lives in my head has questioned the accuracy rate I claim above. According to Mcthulabac, ancient warrior priest of Atlantis, my accuracy rate is closer to the anti-Limbaugh rate of .00001%. I of course disagree so I stabbed my brain with a knitting needle to shut him up.
DC v. Heller, Supreme Court