|
|
这个作者对 Heller 案的解读很奇特啊，他本人不是律师，更不是宪法律师，俺对其观点持保留态度。
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Heller 案的判词其实说的是，2A 保护所有的单兵武器。
后来最高法院在 Caetano 案的一致判词中，重申了 Heller 案的以上观点。
|
|
[复制链接]
发表于 2018-5-9 19:56
楼主