rp responded in post 438: 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".*
rp wrote in post 551: 1) Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. That is my interpretation.
Now, how can you say you are drifting from the "standard model" to the "limited individual rights model" (which says there is an individual constitutional right to militia related weapons) and then say that you believe (ie, your interpretation) the Second Amendment is not meant to protect the RKBA from infringement by the States?
rp wrote: "The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."
You stating your opinion or case law? Recall that you made such a distinction in an earlier post. My answer depends on which you are talking about.
RP wrote at #526:
-- "The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."
rp wrote at #551:
--- "Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution."
______________________________________
These two statements oppose each others logic, as a fundamental right cannot be redefined, -- and of course, -- our RKBA's is not being protected in many States.
It appears that paulsen has finally become aware that he is in a logical trap of his own making, and has left the field.
Well done to all.
It's not. The second amendment is to protect against federal infringement, not state infringement. Like I stated before, find for me one case where the second amendment was successfully used to thwart some state gun legislation. There are none.
Now, maybe you believe the bull$hit being spewed by tpaine that the second amendment protects your RKBA from state infringement. It doesn't and it never has. If it did, there would be at least one case where the courts have overturned some state gun law because it violated the second amendment. Ask tpaine to give you just one (he can't, there isn't one).
When a federal gun law is challenged, the second amendment is cited. Emerson, for example, violated a federal law which he challenged as violating the second amendment. This is where the federal courts get into their "traditional individual rights model" and "limited individual rights model", etc.
Apples and oranges, Ken H. You did read my post #558, didn't you? I really don't know that I can be any clearer.
"The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."
"You stating your opinion or case law?"
It's a fact, supported by case law.