It raises, considers with care and dilgence, and ultimately and emphatically rejects every argument I have heard for why the 2nd Amendment does not guarntee and individual right to bear arms.
The only downside is a slight expansion of the general principle that felons can have their rights restricted -- in this case by expanding it to cinlude one whom a court hearing has found is likely to engage in violence.
I think this decision will stand. It will move the battleground from "Is there a right?" to "Under what conditions can the right be restricted". But the balance now is restriction of a fundamental consttitutional right.
A major victory <p<
Henrietta, Does Emerson get his guns back after the restraining order is removed?
Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas will definitely uphold. I think Kennedy and O'Connor will be along for this ride, too. If we had Garza in place of Stevens and Luttig in place of Ginsburg, I'd feel much better, but I think we'll win, and a 5-4 win is still a win.
Wisconsin's comment bears repeating, folks:
"...I think this decision will stand. It will move the battleground from "Is there a right?" to "Under what conditions can the right be restricted"..."
Any way you look at the Emerson appellate court ruling, Wisconsin describes that the RKBA argument between pros and antis has changed *fundamentally* in one single day.
Make of the Emerson ruling what you will, but the RKBA is stonger than it was yesterday.
HCI can't be liking this.