Date: November 12th, 2015 11:15 AM
Author: stubborn sneaky criminal
The deeper problem, though, is with the fundamentalist premise
that the true Constitution is the text and the precedents are secondary
at best. That premise, if followed consistently, would overturn many
settled and important principles of constitutional law — that is the
significance of the anomalies. For this reason, fundamentalism is very
much the exception, not the rule. Even the Heller Court, in the most
fundamentalist majority opinion in recent years, could not maintain its
fundamentalism consistently. Among other things, it went out of its
way to say that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt
on” many “longstanding prohibitions” — such as laws forbidding felons
or mentally ill individuals from possessing firearms, or laws
barring firearms from “sensitive places such as schools and government
buildings.”103 The Court gave no explanation for how these exceptions
fit with the “meaning of the Second Amendment” that it had
so painstakingly analyzed.104 But these exceptions are sensible, and
they are “longstanding” — the hallmarks of the common law, not of
fundamentalism.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3042804&forum_id=2#29166428)