Replies

This is not as bad as it sounds. The 5th Circuit did hold-- unlike most other U.S. courts -- that there is an individual right to own guns under the 2nd Amendment. They then held that it is nonetheless constitutional to ban felons or dangerous people from owning guns, and the state court's finding that Emerson had threatened his wife was therefore enough to deprive him of his right to own guns.

What is good about this case is the holding that there is an individual right to own guns; what is even better is that, because the government "won" the case, it cannot appeal to the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, anything the court said about the right being constitutional is dicta (meaning not binding), because the same decision (a remand allowing the state to press its case against Emerson) could have been reached if the Second Amendment had not been found to apply.

It's better to have the dicta than not, but it's not very good. Whoever said Emerson should appeal is correct. Unfortunately, I doubt there's enough interest in the top court to take it. I don't trust O'Conner on this issue, or Kennedy.

This is not as bad as it sounds. The 5th Circuit did hold-- unlike most other U.S. courts -- that there is an individual right to own guns under the 2nd Amendment. They then held that it is nonetheless constitutional to ban felons or dangerous people from owning guns, and the state court's finding that Emerson had threatened his wife was therefore enough to deprive him of his right to own guns.

What is good about this case is the holding that there is an individual right to own guns; what is even better is that, because the government "won" the case, it cannot appeal to the Supreme Court.

Of course, nowadays, anything can be a felony and everyday a zealous prosecutor or legislator is seeking to add another "felony statute." "Dangerous people?" Well, that could be anyone. Just give the prosecutors & spinmeisters a little room and girl scouts will become the sourge of the earth, who should be banned from ever owning a firearm for life. Way too much wiggle room in these "opinions." I'm still looking for that "felons & dangerous people" clause in the Constitution or that other clause that says when one is excommunicated from "the people." I always thought a citizen was a citizen was a citizen. Maybe a citizen isn't always a citizen? Maybe the government will eventually declare us all dangerous felons? Step by step, with reasonable sounding arguments, they erode our liberty. At least they recognized an individual's right to keep and bear arms. I guess that's something. Now they need to define who a citizen is and isn't.