"normally" the court has to apply strict interpretation of the written text. if that strict interpretation leads to ambiguity or confusion or logical fallacy, then the court has to see the "legislative intent" of why the enactment was made in the first place in order to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what the framers of the law intended to be.
if the word written is "and" meaning +, that would imply in strict sense that this is a condition that has to be followed along with other conditions.
now, if someone says no, the legislative intent was not to be + but "or" because the enactment wants to provide relief and not to incur more punishment, and that applying the "+" interpretation would violate my fundamental rights, then the court can decide if the loose definition is justified from the legislative intent and can accept the same.
I don't think anybody really agrees with that position. Let's take an extreme example
The second amendment is: 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.
The definition of an armament according to Britannica is: military weapons that are used to fight a war
Nuclear bombs have been used by the US military to fight a war. By your logic the right of the people to have nuclear bombs is protected by the second amendment.
In what fantasy world does "well regulated" and "anyone can own nuclear weapons" co-exist?
The whole argument about the 2nd Amendment is because it's so vague and ambiguous. If it had just clearly said "Each citizen is permitted to own a flintlock musket, 2 flintlock pistols, and a cavalry sword" (which was probably much closer to the intent of the Amendment) then we wouldn't have such a big issue with gun control. Then again, we might just have fully automatic assault "muskets".
In any case, even if you were allowed to own a nuclear weapon, that doesn't mean that you can afford one. You're allowed to own a Blackhawk helicopter or a HEMMT too, but do you? Herein lies the problem of gun ownership as a "right". Does that mean that people should be provided with guns for free?
>In what fantasy world does "well regulated" and "anyone can own nuclear weapons" co-exist?
Define well regulated and explain how it had anything to do with excluding certain types of weapons.
>The whole argument about the 2nd Amendment is because it's so vague and ambiguous. If it had just clearly said "Each citizen is permitted to own a flintlock musket, 2 flintlock pistols, and a cavalry sword" (which was probably much closer to the intent of the Amendment) then we wouldn't have such a big issue with gun control. Then again, we might just have fully automatic assault "muskets".
This is utterly ridiculous. There were rudimentary automatic weapons (puckle guns) that existed decades prior the Constitution.
Second, private citizens owned the same weaponry as the military. Canons, guns, ships, etc. If the founders wanted to limit the citizens they would have said that was their intention.
Third, if you want to take the interpretation that says only things that existed at the time qualify, then surely you are consistent and don't think the first amendment applies to the internet? Or do you just hold that standard for the 2nd amendment.
>In any case, even if you were allowed to own a nuclear weapon, that doesn't mean that you can afford one.
True, but irrelevant.
>You're allowed to own a Blackhawk helicopter or a HEMMT too, but do you?
I don't have any intention of owning either or nukes for that matter.
>Herein lies the problem of gun ownership as a "right". Does that mean that people should be provided with guns for free?
I don't think rights means you should necessarily be provided it. I don't think the government owes me free electricity and computer so I can exercise my first amendment rights for example. And before you say that example is dumb, remember that people are pushing the idea that the internet is a right. Well the internet is useless without a computer/phone. And a computer/phone is useless without electricity.
Regardless of your wish that guns are not a right, they are considered one in the US. If the US pushes the idea that healthcare is a right and as such it must be free, then I would support a lawsuit that demanded free guns from the government. I believe in consistently applying standards.
Also if it were intended as "meeting all of the criteria disqualifies you", then part A is completely redundant, isn't it? If B and C are true then A is also true.
The points needed to satisfy one of the clauses goes down as the "seriousness" of the crime goes up.
If you got 4 total points, you're out, but if you only have 2 points and it's due to a violent offense, you're also out.