Replies

While I am no expert on constitutional law, my initial impression of this case is that it went very well. The facts were not very good from a 2nd amendment point of view because Emerson did not have clean hands. Nevertheless, the court went out of its way to research and publish a lengthy opinion that provides as much evidence as it could find in favor of the 2nd amendment being an individual right. There is no way that any case, whether in the 5th circuit or not, can ignore the court’s work. Yes, they may not be bound by this court, but they will be faced with the reasoning.

My dream is for one or two of the left-wing US Supreme Court members to retire during Bush’s term to retire and be replaced by Bush nominees, and THEN for a 2nd amendment case to reach the US Supreme Court. In addition, that case would ideally benefit me (and most of us) directly. For example, if a citizen in a state that did not issue concealed handgun permits argued against the relevant state laws based on his 2nd amendment rights. A case along these lines would give the US Supreme Court the ability to rule that the right to BEAR arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, and is thus subject to only reasonable limitations (felons, children), and therefore, no state can prohibit an otherwise qualified individual from carrying a gun.

More interesting text, this time in reference to what 'bear arms' really means:

"However, there are numerous instances of the phrase "bear arms" being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the "people" [or "citizen" or "citizens"] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or "himself"] and the state," or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage "bear arms" was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.(29) And such provisions were enforced on the basis that the right to bear arms was not restricted to bearing arms during actual military service. See Bliss v. Commonwealth, 13 Am. Dec. 251, 12 Ky. 90 (Ky. 1822).

We also note that a minority of the delegates to the Pennsylvania ratification convention proposed the following amendment to the Constitution:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."

Thanks for reply. I didn't notice it like I should have earlier. The football player sounds like a good start. I didn't read enough of it to see if he resided in New Jersey. Since the firearm and ammo was secured it should be a good case. I think the judge will just throw it out rather than have it come to trial. If we continue to win like this and crime continues to drop, we might even see the end of the Brady Bill.