It's been infringed to the status of a either a paid privilege or banned, depending on particulars, for tens of millions of folks.
What do you think we'll gain by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling? Do you think they'll also say that the second amendment protects concealed carry -- anywhere, anytime, by anybody?
Why should folks in Alaska and Vermont have more rights recognized than citizens in the rest of the country?
Do you think they'll also say that all weapons are protected -- machine guns, rocket launchers, tanks, artillery, grenades, flame throwers, etc.?
The militia were expected to deal with the weaponry of a regular standing army. Crew served weapons should remain with the organized militia, i.e. National Guard and Reserve Components of the United States Armed Forces.
"That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. And as we have noted, the United States Supreme Court has observed that prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons does not offend the Second Amendment."
Many states have laws against the open carry of handguns.
Uh-oh. Did you see that, Freedom_Is_Not_Free? Do you realize what that means, Freedom_Is_Not_Free? Or should I call you "idiot among idiots"?
Let's do it your way. It goes to the U.S. Supreme Court and they say the second amendment protects an individual right. Yay! Let's all celebrate!
Now, either this court, or some future liberal court, says that the second amendment doesn't protect concealed carry, meaning that ALL 50 STATES must comply. Hmmmmm.
Hey, even worse. Some future liberal court says that "arms" doesn't include handguns. Turn 'em in. Or "keep" means to keep in a state armory, not at home.
Black robes do the things that they do. They can be overruled by Congress, e.g. late term, "partial birth abortion." Parker v. D.C. says you can't ban a whole class of weapons, and that firearms are expected to be available for self defense.
Oh, that won't happen robertpaulsen. Oh, no. Just like abortion cannot possibly be a protected right. Or sodomy. Or, eminent domain only applies to cities taking property, not private enterprise. Or the first amendment can't possibly apply to nude dancing. Or, certainly the first amendment protects political speech 90 days before an election.
SCOTUS just heard a new case on the BCRA. IIRC, it's restriction is 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election. Anthony Kennedy voted with the minority last time. IMHO, I expect a 5 - 4 vote to overturn at least that provision.
Yeah, good idea. Let's have these 9 yahoos on the U.S. Supreme Court interpret the meaning of the second amendment for every state.
"Idiot" is perhaps too kind. "Traitorous, Sarah Brady lacky" might be a better descriptor for you and others who want this.
I didn't ask for Parker, but it's a train that left the station. Regardless of any en banc decision or lack thereof, I'll be surprised if SCOTUS doesn't grant cert. That said, the facts and logic of Parker seemed ironclad.
It has been "reasonably regulated" by the state, an action that even the Parker court said is permissible. The U.S. Supreme Court declaring an individual right does not change this.
"Why should folks in Alaska and Vermont have more rights recognized than citizens in the rest of the country?"
Ah. So you're saying that the U.S. Supreme Court will not only declare an individual right but will incorporate the second amendment and make it applicable to all the states? Well then, in that case, your right. The folks in Alaska and Vermont will have the same rights recognized as citizens in the rest of the country. Either all will have concealed carry or none will. I bet you think they all will, right?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
"The militia were expected to deal with the weaponry of a regular standing army"
True enough. But back then, what about those outside the Militia? What of those individuals? Certainly they needed weapons for self-protection and hunting.
Well, if the second amendment protects an individual right and not a collective Militia right, then individuals certainly don't need machine guns and BMG's and semi-auto rifles. The National Guard will use those.
"Many states have laws against the open carry of handguns."
Would you prefer open carry or concealed carry?
"They can be overruled by Congress, e.g. late term, "partial birth abortion."
Yeah, that only took Congress 40 years. For just one minor subset of abortion.
"Parker v. D.C. says you can't ban a whole class of weapons, and that firearms are expected to be available for self defense."
Correct. D.C. banned all guns. Even after this ruling, D.C.can ban all guns except shotguns, for example.
"I didn't ask for Parker, but it's a train that left the station."
I don't care. Are you wanting this to go to the U.S. Supreme Court for them to decide on an individual or collective right?
“The militia were expected to deal with the weaponry of a regular standing army. Crew served weapons should remain with the organized militia, i.e. National Guard and Reserve Components of the United States Armed Forces.”
Sorry ‘bout having to tell you this, but individuals DID own crew served weapons (cannon) and individuals even owned warships (privateers).
I am far less worried that some tank owner will turn whacko than that the nice Mexican walking down the street may be part of the Mexican criminal population.
The crime stats support my position regarding relative risks described above..