[robertpaulsen]

"The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."

You disagree? Oh, this I gotta hear. Wait, let me get something to drink and get settled.

OK, Ken H, tell me how wrong I am and why.

[Ken H]

"The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."

You disagree? Oh, this I gotta hear. Wait, let me get something to drink and get settled.

OK, Ken H, tell me how wrong I am and why.

It would be more clear had you used the entire quote:

"Or to put my position more truthfully-- The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution." rp

I believe that is your position, although I wouldn't bet any money on it because you also said:

I've always believed in the "standard model" (aka "traditional individual rights model) interpretation of the second amendment.

But the more case law I read, the more I'm drifting to the "limited individual rights model". [that individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service]

Can you see why I wouldn't bet any money on what you really believe the Second Amendment means?