[45Auto]

The extensive discussion, in dicta, upholds (maybe not the right term) the individual right to keep and bear arms even though one is not a member of an organized militia, and soundly REJECTS the collective rights' or states rights' invention of the enemies of freedom.

[45Auto]

We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller. However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second Amendment we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights

[JWinNC]

"The extensive discussion, in dicta, upholds (maybe not the right term) the individual right to keep and bear arms even though one is not a member of an organized militia, and soundly REJECTS the collective rights' or states rights' invention of the enemies of freedom.

That's great, but the decision also seems to say that the right can be limited by whatever means the Federal government chooses. The Federal Government should not have that power.

JWinNC