"Once you recognize [gun ownership] as an individual right, then the work shifts to figuring out what type of regulation is permissible," he says.
My concern is that if SCOTUS rules against the decision using the 'collective right' argument then the floodgates of gun control will be open -
The Court is not that politically stupid. Such a 'collective' decision would incite massive civil disobedience, akin to booze prohibition.
They will settle instead for the idiotic theory that 'regulations' can prohibit, - supposedly without infringing.
Then the work shifts, as Tushnet says, to proving that legislators in the USA have no delegated power to prohibit.
"-- Also important, says Tushnet, is the fact that because Parker emanates from the District of Columbia, where only federal law applies, it doesn't involve the overlaying question of whether the Second Amendment applies to a state by way of the 14th Amendment — a question that clouded an earlier case involving one city's complete ban on handgun possession.
He adds that a number of states urged the Court not to take that case, and the solicitor general did the same in another one. --"
If our individual right is acnowledged, States like California are SOL with their unconstitutional prohibitions/infrigements. - Bet on it.
And, - bet that there will be a massive behind the scenes fight urging the Court not to hear Parker.
a “collective right” rewriting of the consittution will terminate not just the second. ALL the bill of rights would suddenly become open to “collective right” revisionism.
No more “personal” 5th amendment right, just a “collective 5th amendment.