[mvpel]

I wish I shared your optimism. Certainly this is what I'm hoping for and clearly it's what one would expect from a respectable court, but there is always the distinct possibility that this court is simply too corrupt to rule properly.

The vast weight of clear historical evidence is on the side of the Second Amendment as an individual right. Check out the Fifth Circuit's opinion in the Emerson case, for example.

Were the SCOTUS to ignore that for the sake of political expediency, they would shatter the Supreme Court's credibility and arguably void the statehood contracts of not only the first 13 but many other states as well, all of which clearly understood upon ratification the Bill of Rights as pertaining to individual, personal rights, and run the risk of splitting apart the United States. The Constitution was only ratified in the first place because of the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights was drafted to protect individual rights. I just don't see the Supreme Court opening that can of worms.

[Filo]

The vast weight of clear historical evidence is on the side of the Second Amendment as an individual right. Check out the Fifth Circuit's opinion in the Emerson case, for example.

Were the SCOTUS to ignore that for the sake of political expediency, they would shatter the Supreme Court's credibility [...]

No argument on any of that. I've read the Emmerson case and all of the briefs (both sides) on the Heller case and much, much more. I share everything but your optimism with regard to the corruptibility of the SCOTUS as an institution.

I just don't trust the government. That mistrust has only ever been reinforced by the government's actions, especially recently.

Remember, the other can of worms is overturning 70+ years of unconstitutional anti-gun legislation nationwide. . .