[Filo]

The US Supreme Court has talked about the Second Amendment in terms of an individual right for decades, so there’s not much reason to expect them to change course now.

I’ll be interested to see if they attempt to weasel out of “shall not be infringed.”

I wish I shared your optimism. Certainly this is what I'm hoping for and clearly it's what one would expect from a respectable court, but there is always the distinct possibility that this court is simply too corrupt to rule properly.

I'm happy if we get an individual rights decision out of them. The "shall not be infringed" part comes later.

[mvpel]

I wish I shared your optimism. Certainly this is what I'm hoping for and clearly it's what one would expect from a respectable court, but there is always the distinct possibility that this court is simply too corrupt to rule properly.

The vast weight of clear historical evidence is on the side of the Second Amendment as an individual right. Check out the Fifth Circuit's opinion in the Emerson case, for example.

Were the SCOTUS to ignore that for the sake of political expediency, they would shatter the Supreme Court's credibility and arguably void the statehood contracts of not only the first 13 but many other states as well, all of which clearly understood upon ratification the Bill of Rights as pertaining to individual, personal rights, and run the risk of splitting apart the United States. The Constitution was only ratified in the first place because of the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights was drafted to protect individual rights. I just don't see the Supreme Court opening that can of worms.