[robertpaulsen]

IMO, I wouldn't call this an ideal case. This was a challenge to the gun control statute in California regarding the possession, use and transfer of "assault weapons".

Reinhardt dismissed the plaintiffs' claims "Because the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms...". The challenge could have involved muskets and the ruling would have been the same -- you don't have the right to "own or possess" any weapon.

Here's the problem. If this goes to SCOTUS, the gun control freaks are going to make this case about the right to own "assault weapons" (the original case) rather than an individual's RKBA.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... IMO, I wouldn't call this an ideal case. This was a challenge to the gun control statute in California regarding the possession, use and transfer of "assault weapons"..."

That's just the response I was waiting for. Come to think of it, I believe that you were also the one of the people whose position on the Emerson threads was that it wasn't 'the ideal case we wanted in front of SCOTUS' either.

The difference is clear: The 5th Circuit Court says that there IS, and the 9th says there ISN'T.

It's not about 'assault weapons' in California.

If not this case, then what case did you have in mind? Are you waiting for Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream to overturn the language in Vermont's state constitution that states that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right before you'd be comfortable with SCOTUS hearing it?

No, really: What did you have in mind?