No, the term was well defined in the dictionaries of the day. History provides all the context necessary to understand the meaning for anyone interested in it.
Upholding state law is not a violation of their oath.
Sheriffs don’t get to determine the meaning of the 2nd.
When the courts strike down WA law, then these sheriffs will be in the right. Until then, if they refuse to uphold the law, they are derelict in their duties, just like Kim Davis.
Don’t attribute things to me I never said, it’s patently dishonest.
“Dictionaries.” Which one? Sounds plural. Which one do we adhere to?
Presumed by whom?
Of course they do which is why they keep being overturned in the courts.
Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner, that’s why we are a constitutional republic.
Don’t call others liars. That’s against the forum rules, just like accusing someone of trolling.
If I misconstrued what you said, then feel free to correct me, but in the mean time, I’d suggest you delete the part of your post calling me dishonest. That’s against forum rules.
Let us know when the newest WA laws are struck down.
See above.
See the Heller decision.
I spoke the truth, you didn’t, don’t try to deflect from that fact by playing moderator.
If they meant ALL arms they’d have said ALL arms.
Yes, all rights can be limited.
In your opinion. It wasn’t dishonest-you disagree, so feel free to refute what I said, but calling me dishonest (aka-a liar) is against the ToS.
Your choice.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No right is unlimited.
I look forward to the threads advocating for all criminals to have their gun rights reinstated.
Absolutely should be.
So “shall not be infringed” means “can be limited”?
It doesn’t mean “I get whatever I want whenever I want with no difficulty whatsoever”.
1 Like
That explains why you don’t believe. 
1 Like
No they are not Constitutional and yes those requirements are an infringement. Reference the SCOTUS Rulng in the 1939 US v. Miller case, which in effect stated that arms commonly in use by the military are specifically covered by the 2nd Amendment.
No, that they are inherently limited means they are limited.
