[RWB Patriot]

I do hope I've done a good job laying this out. After finding out about that the Supreme Court is currently deliberating the Second Amendment, I began doing research on whether or not a ruling against the "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment would be as bad as I feared it would be. My research led me to believe that while a "state's rights" view of the Amendment wouldn't be all good, it might not be all bad.

Hopefully, intelligent heads will prevail in the hearing and the Supreme Court will rule in our favor. Time will tell.

[2111USMC]

Speaking of time, when is the Court supposed to release their opinion?

[chesley]

Makes sense, that’s why it’s wrong. If the SC so rules, expect the firearms to be rounded up.

[2ndDivisionVet]

How does that effect those of us over 45 years of age?

[MindBender26]

Why this case was used as a test, why any test case was promoted, I’ll never know.

To possibly help some DC citizens, all our rights were put on trial.

Bad move.

Never go to court when you can lose more than you can win.

[PzLdr]

Should we fear? Nope. We’ve got the guns.

[Amendment10]

The honest interpretation of the 14th A. has already decided the outcome of DC v. Heller in Heller's favor. More specifically, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., had included the 2nd A. when reading the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. So there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity protects other personal rights.

See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record.

http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

Note that the page referenced above is dated for more than two years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. So Bingham was evidently assuring his colleagues about the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.

The bottom line is that the only thing that DC v. Heller is testing is how corrupt the Supreme Court is. Given that the Court decides the case in DC's favor, then it's time, actually long overdue, to peacefully heed Lincoln's advice about government leaders who aren't respecting the Constitution that they have sworn to defend.

"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.

[Hugin]

It seems pretty apparent from the questioning that a majority is inclined to rule the 2nd is an individual right. The big question is going to be to what degree it can be regulated. After all, no rights under the constitution are completely absolute. Governments can require permits for assemblies, property can be zoned for certain uses, free speech doesn't allow you to incite a riot, etc. So will it require a “strict scrutiny” protection (as in free speech), or a lower standard of scrutiny to overturn laws regulating firearms?

[cowboyway]

As for those of us who do not yet own firearms

I would never have thought that there are FReepers that don't own guns.............

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

If the SCOTUS goes against the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, common sense and the English language, no other tenant of law will matter.

It will be time.

The worst result will be a strong majority declaring the Second an individual right subject to common sense regulation.

That will keep the sheeple down as the NRA declares victory but will set us permanently on the road to confiscation and destruction of the Constitution and Republic, with slavery the result.