Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Entirely Clear:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1225930829
An unfortunate locution from D.C. v. Heller:
It is entirely clear that the Court�s basis for saying that the
Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were
�bear[ing] arms� not �for ... military purposes� but for
�nonmilitary use.�
This didn't strike me as quite successful, likely because of the three
"not"'s. An uncharacteristic slip in an otherwise very readable
opinion.
Here's the context, which may make the sentence a bit clearer, but not
much:
The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment
challenge two men�s federal convictions for transporting an
unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in
violation of the National Firearms Act. It is entirely clear that
the Court�s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not
apply was not that the defendants were �bear[ing] arms� not �for
... military purposes� but for �nonmilitary use.� Rather, it was
that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second
Amendment protection ....
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
