Use the passage to answer the question Which phrase of the Second Amendment, which was the fourth article in the original Bill of Rights, did the United States Supreme Court specifically discount in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)? the security of a free state a well-regulated militia the right of the people shall not be infringed
Well, it seems like the Supreme Court wasn't exactly in a joking mood when it came to the Second Amendment. In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court focused on the phrase "a well-regulated militia" and basically said, "Eh, not so important." So, to answer your question, the phrase that got discounted was "a well-regulated militia." Who needs regulations anyway, right? Just kidding, I'm sure they had their reasons.
In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the United States Supreme Court specifically discounted the phrase "a well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment. The Court's interpretation focused on the individual's right to bear arms and the phrase "the right of the people shall not be infringed."
To answer this question, we need to refer to the passage from the Second Amendment in the original Bill of Rights. Here is the full text of the Second Amendment:
Based on the provided passage, the United States Supreme Court specifically discounted the phrase "a well-regulated Militia" in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). This case involved an individual challenge to a Washington D.C. law that effectively banned the possession of handguns in the home.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual's right to bear arms for self-defense, unrelated to service in a militia. The Court reasoned that the phrase "a well-regulated Militia" does not limit the scope of the Second Amendment's protection and instead provides reasoning for the importance of an armed citizenry in maintaining the security of a free state.
Therefore, the Supreme Court discounted the connection between the right to bear arms and the concept of a well-regulated militia in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).