Oh, it may well be better than them saying that the 2A is a "collective right".
They in fact say it is an individual right, but then in Emerson's case, they treat it like a "collective" right, having the collective unilaterally decide for all individuals when it is they can and cannot retain the right.
If the government can tell us that ... due to this "infraction or that infraction ... we lose the right ... then it is in effect a collective right all along. If they think Emerson is too dangerous to exercise his right, then Emerson should remain incarcerated. But given this "crime" ... which is really a statement by his ex-wife ... they know they cannot get away (just yet) with putting him away in jail.
It's double speak IMHO, that further reinforces the government position that it TELLS us when we can or cannot retain our God given rights. <p. So, while it is perhaps better than them telling us that we have no right outright (which I do not believe the government could get away with), it tells us we have the right, but that it's government's job to regulate it. That smacks of fascism. Look at Emerson if you doubt my words ... he does not have his guns, neither can he get any ... all over very lame and frivolous reasoning.
It's accepted that felons do lose some rights (right to vote, right to bear arms). The same may apply for those who might be of concern. Furthermore, even if this line of reasoning is upheld, the anti-gun bunch loses the machine gun freeze and the 1994 semi-auto ban, as well as any ban the states have.
What is left with this reasoning? Felons and other classes of no-goodniks will be prohibited from owning firearms. You may set up something like NICS. You can set up stuff like 10-20-life for those who misuse the right to bear arms. States can govern concealed-carry, but it will have to be Florida-style as the maximum extent of control. I don't know how interstate will work, but that may come from the "full faith and credit" clause.
NO type of firearm can be banned. This also kills registration and licensing, since the case can now be made that it sets up a ban. With an instant check, this kills just about every waiting period scheme, too. And say good-bye to one-gun-a-month and the sporting purposes test.
Not a wipeout of the other side, but they are still crushed decisively. It will be a big improvement in California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois (particularly Chicago), D.C., Maryland, and New Jersey.
Not perfect, but it is close enough to the intent of the 2A for me. And it's a lot better than what those poor folks in California got stuck with.
I simply don't see this. A collective right is one held and exercised by a group. For your logic to be sound, it would require the denial of a right to a group simply because of their membership to that group, ie, denying RKBA to all Baptists 'cause they're Baptists.
These are the words that trouble me most. It would appear from these words that if Congress finds that a particular firearm is "commonly" used by criminals, then it might ban such weapons. One is reminded of the "so-called" "assualt weapons ban" and the number of gunazis that claimed these firearms were the "weapons of choice" for criminals. "Saturday night specials", ie, small, easily concealable" firearms might also be specifically targeted using this as a loop-hole. I would have prefered wording similar to: "uniquely used by criminals", or words to that effect. Of course the surrounding text would seem to indicate that the weapons must only have a criminal usage to be vulnerable.
Now there is no need to get a conviction of a felony in order to have BATF burn you out, all they need is a restaining order.