Replies

But no. No, that's somehow not good enough. There are those on this forum whot insist on a U.S. Supreme Court all-or-nothing showdown -- despite the fact that every lower federal court in every lower federal court gun case (save two) have ruled that the second amendment protects a collective, not individual, right. Idiots.

You really are a moron aren't you?

I truly believe that you are anti-second amendment, as hysterical as you get over this issue.

You are also too ignorant to understand what the Majority in Parker did to Souter and Ginsburg with this statement:

"We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: "Surely a most familiar meaning [of 'carries a firearm'] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ('keepand bear Arms') and Black's Law Dictionary . . . indicate: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for"bear Arms."

They just put a shot across the bow of SCOTUS and these two justices that they are already on record in a various opinions that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Why don't you ship your resume to AlGore since Global Warming will be the next issue in need of your spamming talents...

Idiot.

Re your post 29 and remarks directed to Mr. Robert Paulson. From past posts by this Illinois resident that I've seen, it seems he is anti-gun. Just disregard any further posts from this guy since he is here only to argue (and believe me, he thinks he's the smartest human on Earth).

I accent "disregard." He's only spoiling for a fight. May be wrong but I think we're dealing with someone with a crocodile mouth and a hummingbird ass, too.

Well said Abundy..

There are collectivist communitarian's on this forum who insist, -- [in a SCOTUS showdown over the 2nd Amendment] -- that the lower federal court 'rulings', -- which claim the second amendment protects a collective, not an individual right, -- will affect the USSC decision.

This collectivist/'majority rules' position on the carrying of arms has been throughly discredited in recent years, as is made evident in Parker.
We are seeing the last gasp of the concept that State & local communities can deprive people of their life, liberty or property without due process of [constitutionally based] law.

"-- [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . ."
-Justice Harlan-

"They just put a shot across the bow of SCOTUS and these two justices that they are already on record in a various opinions that the Second Amendment is an individual right."

WHAT??? They're "on record" for saying what?

Did you even read Muscarello? The Muscarello court was attempting to define the phrase "carries a firearm" in Section 924(c)(1) of Title 18, United States Code to see if enhanced punishment applied to the defendant in that case.

The court mentioned a number of possibilities of what it meant, including the second amendment. BUT, they concluded, "Such references, given their variety, are not reliable indicators of what Congress meant, in §924(c)(1), by “carries a firearm.”

Your level of ignorance on this subject is astounding. You'd hang everything on the Parker court interpretation of what Souter and Ginsburg said in the Muscarello case? Calling you a moron would be a compliment.

But even IF the Muscarello opinion could be interpreted as saying the second amendment protected an individual right, so what? Numerous lower federal courts in numerous cases have said the same -- an individual right to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia. Even the favorable court in Emerson recognized this in their opinion:

"Proponents of the next model admit that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited species of individual right. However, this supposedly "individual" right to bear arms can only be exercised by members of a functioning, organized state militia who bear the arms while and as a part of actively participating in the organized militia's activities. A number of our sister circuits have accepted this model, sometimes referred to by commentators as the sophisticated collective rights model."
-- United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)