.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Gallo My position has been that there is no absolute right granted to individuals by the 2nd Amendment. That right was granted to "the people" as a means to maintain a militia for times of emergency. |
Then your position has been consistant with the current case law precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, decided in 1939 in
Miller, and
8 of the 11 Federal Circuit Courts, who have affirmed and expanded on Miller. The only dissenter has been the 5th Circuit Court out of Texas, with their decision in
Emerson... figures.
All other decisions, based on
Miller, held that the 2nd Amendment was a "COLLECTIVE" right of the states to form militias, and individuals had the right to keep and bear arms
provided that such arms was necessary for the maintainance of a well-regulated militia. Which meant that it was not about any particular gun but whether that particular citizen needed that particular gun to help maintain the militia... a rather difficult case to prove.
That means that for the last 70 years, folks like the NRA, etc. have been lying to the American people regarding their "INDIVIDUAL" right to own guns.
Alas, it's an ironic shame that, as the nation impatiently awaits the departure of
'The Worst President Ever', his biggest legacy may very likely be that his stacked conservative court will overturn the 70 yr-old standing precedent, and declare the 2nd Amendment as open season on Americans.
Oddly enough, the honorable Justices in their discussions all seem intent on finding that the government can still regulate gun ownership... as if they're desperately trying to hold the status quo while appeasing the libertarian right that the 'Individual' right applies and will prevent the most extreme forms of gun control... like DC's outright ban ...but not eliminate all gun control.
A reasonable compromise to many, I'm sure, but to my mind, a total cop out.
.