[Ken H]

My position is that there was federal protection prior to Kelo, because the plain meaning of the Takngs Clause was understood and obeyed at all levels of government. With Kelo, the Court removed that protection.

Had governments not been infringing the RKBA for decades - with the acquiescence of the courts - your Kelo analogy might be defensible. As it is, a collective interpretation of the RKBA would not remove any protections.

_____________________________

My question: We have discussed ad nauseum the judicial interpretation of the Constitution with respect to the RKBA, so let's set that aside for now.

If interpreted correctly, would the Constitution prohibit state and local governments from infringing the RKBA, in your opinion?

Your reply: The courts have repeatedly ruled that it would not.

In your opinion, are those rulings correct, or are they in error, cowardly dodger?

[robertpaulsen]

"My position is that there was federal protection prior to Kelo"

You assumed there was protection. Turns out there wasn't.

We also assume "arms" includes semi-automatic pistols and that "to bear" includes concealed carry. We could be wrong there, also. Let's have the U.S. Supreme Court tell us, the same court that told us about Kelo.

"If interpreted correctly, would the Constitution prohibit state and local governments from infringing the RKBA, in your opinion?"

If interpreted correctly in my opinion? What kind of question is that?

If interpreted correctly, the constitution would not prohibit it. As written, the constitution would not prohibit state and local governments from infringing on any of the rights listed in the first eight amendments. That's simply a fact. No opinion necessary.