Replies

The Constitution means whatever five Sup Court justices say it means at any particular time. Jefferson warned against allowing the Sup Court such power, but it has come to pass, and the inferior branches are not going to do anything about it, so we might as well get used to it.

It seems that someday there must be a definitive case about the Second Amendment; i.e. does it protect an individual right, or a worthless collective one?

As the Court stands now, I would be wary of the result, as it would take getting both O'Connor and Kennedy to step back from the dark side. If Bush hasn't picked a Souter in Roberts, then it comes down to Kennedy.

But then again, I haven't heard of any such a case making its way through the lower courts, so who knows when it will happen.

"I haven't heard of any such a case making its way through the lower courts"

Almost all of those cases are based on state laws, and the federal courts have ruled time and time again that the second amendment is not applicable to state gun laws.

The showdown will come from a federal gun law (the federal AWB was a good opportunity, but it was challenged on Commerce Clause grounds, not the second amendment) not a state gun law.

The closest we got was the 2001 decision by the 5th Circuit Court in United States v. Emerson where they stated that the federal law (18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(8)) preventing gun possession if subject to a domestic violence restraining order covering was unconstitutional and that the Constitution guarantees the right of an individual to bear arms for purposes unrelated to militia service.

But, this was countered by other rulings of the Fourth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts that "a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well regulated militia."

We've got a ways to go before we have the USSC resolve this.

You wrote:

It seems that someday there must be a definitive case about the Second Amendment; i.e. does it protect an individual right, or a worthless collective one?
But then again, I haven't heard of any such a case making its way through the lower courts, so who knows when it will happen.
22 Aetius

Almost all of those cases are based on state laws, and the federal courts have ruled time and time again that the second amendment is not applicable to state gun laws.

The showdown will come from a federal gun law (the federal AWB was a good opportunity, but it was challenged on Commerce Clause grounds, not the second amendment) not a state gun law.

The closest we got was the 2001 decision by the 5th Circuit Court in United States v. Emerson where they stated that the federal law (18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(8)) preventing gun possession if subject to a domestic violence restraining order covering was unconstitutional and that the Constitution guarantees the right of an individual to bear arms for purposes unrelated to militia service.

But, this was countered by other rulings of the Fourth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts that "a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well regulated militia."

We've got a ways to go before we have the USSC resolve this.
55 robertpaulsen

Aetius, you see above a post that, on the surface, looks to be written by a supporter of gun rights.
Actually, he does not agree that "the Constitution guarantees the right of an individual to bear arms for purposes unrelated to militia service".

He agrees that a State gun-control law does not violate our gun rights unless it violates that States constitution.

California's prohibition on 'assault weapons' is just fine with him.