The term "render" (indeed, the entire passage) was used by the Supreme Court to describe the law that it overturned. It overturned the "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense".
One might insist that the "immediate self-defense" bit is also used to describe the law in question, but one runs afoul of the fact that the law didn't prohibit unlocking and/or assembling the firearm merely for immediate self-defense, it did so for all purposes, whether or not self-defense was involved and whether or not that self-defense was "immediate" or not. So whereas the term "render" quite clearly is directly descriptive of the law SCOTUS overturned (as the law prohibited one from unlocking the firearm or assembling it while it was in the home), the context of the term "immediate" is not. That term is embodied in a phrase which describes the basis upon which the Court objected to the law. Therein lies its significance, such as it is.
As such, unless I am forced to read the holding in the way FGG apparently is, in which case absurdly evil conclusions logically arise, I read nothing into the term "render" save for the fact that it was being used to describe the law being overturned.
One might insist that the "immediate self-defense" bit is also used to describe the law in question, but one runs afoul of the fact that the law didn't prohibit unlocking and/or assembling the firearm merely for immediate self-defense, it did so for all purposes, whether or not self-defense was involved and whether or not that self-defense was "immediate" or not. So whereas the term "render" quite clearly is directly descriptive of the law SCOTUS overturned (as the law prohibited one from unlocking the firearm or assembling it while it was in the home), the context of the term "immediate" is not. That term is embodied in a phrase which describes the basis upon which the Court objected to the law. Therein lies its significance, such as it is.
As such, unless I am forced to read the holding in the way FGG apparently is, in which case absurdly evil conclusions logically arise, I read nothing into the term "render" save for the fact that it was being used to describe the law being overturned.
Comment