[KoRn]

This case shows how Heller was a bad ruling.

The SCOTUS opened the door for scores of lawsuits and litigation. They SHOULD have ruled that the 2nd provides a right to firearms ownership.

[Shooter 2.5]

This case shows how Heller was a bad ruling.

It's the ruling the goa wanted. All the other gun groups wanted the broader view so we wouldn't have to sue countless times for each and every law. The NRA is involved in half a dozen lawsuits since Heller.

[Eagle Eye]

They SHOULD have ruled that the 2nd provides a right to firearms ownership.

In a just country it would seem to me that the clear and plain language of the Founding Documents would be enough to rid the entire country of mountains of contradictory legislation.

If one is a free man then one may keep and bear arms.

Arms does not mean a single shot black powder muzzle loader or a penknife.

But that is in a just and free country, isn't it?

[mvpel]

The SCOTUS opened the door for scores of lawsuits and litigation. They SHOULD have ruled that the 2nd provides a right to firearms ownership.

Do you think that it would have been a 5-4 ruling, instead of a 4-5 ruling, if the litigants had tried to force them into such a broad ruling?

We didn't lose our rights overnight, and we won't win them back overnight.

[editor-surveyor]

.
“They SHOULD have ruled that the 2nd provides a right to firearms ownership.”

.

But the second does no such thing! - - It merely defers to the existing right that God provided.
.