Looks like every else has already neatly dismantled your anti-RKBA crap already.
Don't you ever get tired of being so incredibly wrong? Or are you just so full of yourself that you are completely incapable of seeing it?
Seek professional help...
Your individual RKBA is protected by your state constitution. Which is why gun laws (eg., concealed carry) vary from state to state.
Think about it. If the second amendment protected that right, the laws would have to be the same in each state, would they not?
Prior to this ruling, every lower federal circuit court in every lower federal circuit court case (save one) has ruled a "collective" right -- ie., an individual RKBA as part of a state Militia. The second amendment was to protect the ability of the states to form state Militias from federal interference.
I'm always thrilled when gun grabbers make really blatant errors. So "the people" in the 1st Amendment is an individual right but in the 2nd Amendment "the people" is a collective right. I have this really nice bridge that surely you'll be interested in buying.
You just shot yourself in the foot for the umpteenth time.
That is a really good point.
Correct any misstatements of fact, but don't argue principals or rights with it.
Looks like every else has already neatly dismantled your anti-RKBA crap already.
Don't you ever get tired of being so incredibly wrong? Or are you just so full of yourself that you are completely incapable of seeing it?
Seek professional help...
And now, for the second time, a high court has told the lower courts they're seriously misguided.
BTW: a state high court (NJ) also ruled the same thing yesterday.
Just because a sequence of precident leads lower courts to a way to not say something they don't want to say doesn't make it right. There is plenty of history of courts going one way, then dramatically changing course wholesale. Sometimes wrong conclusions just don't hold up forever.
"Prior to this ruling, every lower federal circuit court in every lower federal circuit court case (save one) has ruled a "collective" right -- ie., an individual RKBA as part of a state Militia. The second amendment was to protect the ability of the states to form state Militias from federal interference."
WRONG ANSWER, bobby. VERY wrong answer. First, the same word, "PEOPLE," used in the other parts of the BoR, MEANS THE SAME THING, that is, INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS, PERIOD. You know it but you're a weasel. Second, the BoR, like the rest of the Constitution, grants NOTHING. It orders government to RESPECT AND PROTECT PREEXISTING RIGHTS and makes no mention in the Second or any other but first and third as to who may not infringe. Thus, the States are not excluded from the requirement not to infringe. Third, as with ANY RIGHT (even the ones you admit exist but, so YOU say, are not protected by society), they are NOT subject to a vote by ANYONE, EVER, for any reason. If a RIGHT exists, it is automatically protected by our Constitution and BoR and may not be voted on or legislated out of existence. The ONLY regulation of any RIGHT is as to where and how it may be exercised IN PUBLIC PLACES. And that only by States and localities, NEVER FedGov.
Not to be argumentative but no lower federal circuit court case until recent years assumed any collective right. That is a recent interpretation. There is a large number of court decisions that assume an individual right right up through the 19th century. There are actually not a lot of court decisions that discuss the right directly because it was always understood as an individual right and society until the 1920s accepted firearms ownership as a normal part of everyday life. An exception includes the famous Dred Scott decision in which it is mentioned that blacks can not be considered full citizens because then they would have full rights including the right to bear arms. Later in the 19th century, laws regulating the concealment of firearms began to crop up. The NFA of 1934 was the first law focused on arms. WW1 had horrified people with the power of advances in military technology, especially aircraft and poison gas although artillery was the real killer. The popular press and movies of the early 1930s portrayed gangsters with machine guns threatening good society and the result was the severe regulation of machine guns. Increasing urbanization of the population and dissociation from traditional hunting and self-reliant lifestyles further distanced Americans from their self-defense rights. The cascade of restrictions really came after the 1960s assassinations of prominent public figures. The collective right argument did not become well known until the 1990s. I wrote a paper reviewing the rulings on personal protection technologies about 7 years ago but the best review of the law was a review published about 3 years ago associated with the Emerson case, I believe. I hope someone finds and posts it.