[Leica]

[sethrosner at nycap.rr.com (Seth Rosner)]

Looking through the archive, I noticed that last Monday Larry Zeitlin wrote:

The US Supreme Court recently held that a correct interpretation of
the Second Amendment permits ownership of guns. Some years ago It
also found that Constitution implies an individual's right to
privacy. The Leica is one of the best tools for invading privacy ever
invented. One can easily justify keeping guns and banning Leicas.

Complicated, isn't it?

Actually, it's much simpler than that. What the Supreme Court held is that 
the District of Columbia cannot constitutionally ban the possession of any 
firearm in the District, even in one's home. And the Constitution doesn't 
imply a right of privacy, it states it quite clearly. But the Leica isn't at 
all a tool for the invasion of privacy since the right to privacy evaporates 
once one is in a public place, even an indoor public place. Proving once 
again just how misleading constitutional generalizations can be.

Seth