WASHINGTON - When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is cast as the swing vote in a case before the Court, he often waits until late in the oral argument to tip his hand.

But as the Court yesterday considered the landmark Second Amendment case D.C. v. Heller, Justice Kennedy was quick to lay bare his view on the scope of the right to bear arms contained in the amendment. The first part, he said, was meant to reaffirm "the existence and the importance" of the treatment of state militias contained in the Constitution itself. The second part, he asserted, means that "in addition" there is a right to bear arms, which he later declared was a "general right."

The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Justice Kennedy's comments appeared to spell trouble for efforts by the District of Columbia to revive its strict handgun ban, although lawyers for both the Bush administration and gun-rights advocates acknowledged that some lesser regulation of the right would be acceptable.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleN ... 5883415200

I'M ALL FOR THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

LIKE IT READS ~> ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

x2

It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is without.

I loves my gun.