If free speech were an unanienable, God-given right, then it couldn't be infringed or taken away. Your right to free speech is defined by the laws of society, as you well know. Or do you think you have a God-given, unalienable right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, spread malicious slander about a private individual, utter fighting words, or yell profanities in front of children? What, you call that "liberty"?
"Please explain why the Ninth Circus claims that the Second Amendment is a "collective right"?"
Sure, if you promise to tell me why the Fifth Circuit, in U.S. v Emerson, claimed the Second Amendment is an "individual right".
The Ninth Circuit stated, "Because the Second Amendment does not confer (not "protect" as you claim) an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that constitutional provision." Do you disagree? Do you think the second Amendment "confers an individual right"? Is that where we get our "right"?
That's the problem. The defendants were looking for protection where none was to be had. The protection of their rights is found in their own state constitution, which, in this case, is stone-cold silent.
"If a state has an RKBA, then its citizens have an individual right. If a state does not have an RKBA, then the citizens of that state do not have an individual right."
I don't like the phrasing of that. Let's try this. You have a right to keep and bear arms. It's a fundamental right. Now, does the state in which you live protect that right or is it silent?
If your state constitution protects that right, then the state supreme court interpretation of the wording describes the limits of your rights. These interpretations are reflected in your state laws.
If, on the other hand, your state constitution is silent on the right to keep and bear arms (as it is in California and five other states), then your right is not protected. Your "right" is simply the arbitrary laws passed by the state legislature which, hopefully, reflect the will of the majority of the citizens of your state.
Don't look to the Second amendment of the U.S. Constitution for your protection. I'm very concerned about the way the Ninth read it (even though it had nothing to do with the case*).
Basically, they said, "Congress cannot ban arms because the people need them to form a militia to protect their state. And since the defendants weren't forming a militia to protect their state, we can ban their guns." Essentially ruling on a "collective right".
* SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER was not the right case to challenge the RKBA, and it definitely was not the right federal court to challenge it in. It was a disaster. It gave Judge Reinhardt the forum he was looking for to rebut the Fifth Circuit ruling in U.S. v Emerson. His rambling opinion was a direct assault on the opinion in Emerson (he mentions it often).
Inane. - ANY inalienable right can be infringed upon by bad law.
Your right to free speech is defined by the laws of society, as you well know.
Nope, not 'defined', as a right is inherent. - but speech can be reasonably regulated.
Or do you think you have a God-given, unalienable right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, spread malicious slander about a private individual, utter fighting words, or yell profanities in front of children? What, you call that "liberty"?
Rational folks call such laws reasonable regulation.
The Ninth Circuit stated, "Because the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that constitutional provision." Do you disagree? Do you think the second Amendment "confers an individual right"? Is that where we get our "right"?
Our RKBA's is inherent with our right to self defense.
That's the problem. The defendants were looking for protection where none was to be had. The protection of their rights is found in their own state constitution, which, in this case, is stone-cold silent.
Our rights exist, regardless of whether the State protects them.
You have a right to keep and bear arms. It's a fundamental right. Now, does the state in which you live protect that right or is it silent? If your state constitution protects that right, then the state supreme court interpretation of the wording describes the limits of your rights. These interpretations are reflected in your state laws.
Bizarre thinking. Our fundamental rights exist whether the State protects them or not. - Our lawful actions can be reasonably regulated, but our rights cannot be violated to enforce such regulations/laws.
If, on the other hand, your state constitution is silent on the right to keep and bear arms (as it is in California and five other states), then your right is not protected. Your "right" is simply the arbitrary laws passed by the state legislature which, hopefully, reflect the will of the majority of the citizens of your state.
Our right to self defense, [RKBA's] exists whether a State recognizes it or not.
Don't look to the Second amendment of the U.S. Constitution for your protection.
Why not? - Our only other recourse is civil [or uncivil] disobedience.
I'm very concerned about the way the Ninth read it (even though it had nothing to do with the case*). Basically, they said, "Congress cannot ban arms because the people need them to form a militia to protect their state. And since the defendants weren't forming a militia to protect their state, we can ban their guns." Essentially ruling on a "collective right". * SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER was not the right case to challenge the RKBA, and it definitely was not the right federal court to challenge it in. It was a disaster. It gave Judge Reinhardt the forum he was looking for to rebut the Fifth Circuit ruling in U.S. v Emerson. His rambling opinion was a direct assault on the opinion in Emerson (he mentions it often).
ANY case that challenges the current systems 'wisdom' on gun rights is good. They are fighting an unwinnable regulatory battle, and they know it.
- [How is that you don't, paulsen?]
In the end, people will fight & die to retain their ability to defend themselves. Unreasonable regulations on our RKBA's only hasten the day when it is 'time'.
You've used up a lot of electronic ink to dodge the question here. Many scholars recognize that the Second Amendment "protects" an individual right. The clear meaning of the Ninth Circuit's reference to the Second Amendment was to deny that it referenced in any way an individual right. How is it not reasonable to presume that it would have been relevant if the Second Amendment DOES protect an individual right.
Much like the Ninth Circuit, you seem to enjoy quoting irrelevancy which may be literally true ("The Second Amendment does not CONFER an individual right") and then conclude from that that there is no individual right, which is exactly how the reference was used in the Ninth Circuit's opinion.
It is my recollection that US vs Miller states unequivocally that the Second Amendment refers to an "existing" right and that that right is in no way dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Only tortured defenses such as that which you supply for the Ninth Circuit have allowed Miller to be used to support a "collective right" interpretation which is nowhere present in Miller.