[ctdonath2]

Given that it's focused on possession in the home, they're gonna have an awfully hard time concocting "reasonable restrictions" - especially considering the reasoning behinde Roe.

[Sender]

I hope you are right. Most of the "debate" I have read on the 2A has been either hyper-right or hyper-left with very little reasonable discussion in between.

I think the founders meant for the 2A to assert that "the People" have the right to keep and bear arms, and I am one of those people, as are you.

Is it an unviolable right with no restrictions? There's the rub. Let's say that the SC validates the 2A as an individual right that "shall not be infringed". As I fully expect they will. Does that mean that the NFA and GCA68 and any silly AWB are invalidated? Does that mean that felons cannot be prohibited from owning guns? Does that mean that everyone can wear a gun into a courtroom or the office? Of course, the antis will throw up the old bazooka and nuclear warhead arguments. What are reasonable restrictions?

Somehow I doubt that the SC will dig very deep into that pandora's box. They will say that yes, it is an individual right, and be very vague on restrictions.

Since this case revolves around the right of DC residents to possess a working gun "in the home", maybe that will force them to override local restrictions.

So if the 2A is validated as an individual right, what do you think will be the legal fallout as to the NFA, felons, domestic violence, etc?