pillbox_girl:
"These laws ARE unconstitutional! They just haven't been challenged in the Supreme Court yet."
[Paulsen denies our RKBA's;]
" --- Sure they have. ---"
[And cites some tired old statist ops]
-- U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
-- PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
-- Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894)
The lower federal courts have ruled similarly:
The Ninth Circuit has ruled FIVE TIMES that the second amendment does not create a fundamental individual right, and also that it is not a restriction on state laws because the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.
Unless you have more than capital letters and bold type to support your views, don't bother responding.
I have no intention of playing "Yes it does! No it doesn't!" games with you. Put up or shut up.
["FIVE TIMES" bold type followed by his circular argument "No it isn't!" game. Tish tish.]
______________________________________
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Address:http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
--- Conclusion ---
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views.
The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion.
Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.
Even if his opinion was accepted as the correct interpretation of the second amendment (currently, only the 5th Circuit Court holds that opinion), it still only applies to federal law. States are bound by their state constitution, not the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the Attorney General's opinion does not change that fact.