I don't see how the "shall not be infringed" concept can be sensibly interpreted as an "absolute" right.
To take an extreme example - would this mean that convicts have the RKBA while in prison? I don't thing that any court or reasonable (sensible?) person is going to say that. If I'm correct, then the right can't be considered to be absolute. Which, of course, makes things much more complicated. But we've coped with the "falsely shout Fire in a crowded theater", and I expect we can also cope with the fuzzy line in this context - although it may take more court cases. -- --henry schaffer _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
