[CFC__VRWC]

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).

Is this for real? I just can't imagine any federal court today making a ruling like this. If true, this is a major victory for gun rights.

[MrB]

I also was HUGELY surprised at the CORRECT interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Back when yahoo had message boards, you couldn't swing a stick without hitting a dozen stupid assed lefties that clung to the "WELL REGULATED" part of the amendment, applying what THEY thought it meant, instead of what the founders intended.

This is usually the position of most leftist judges as well.

[Clump]

I concur with your amazement over this ruling. Half way through I almost expected a "can you imagine if this were true" line that indicated a vanity post only. As a lawyer I am very excited about what this may bring if confirmed by SCOTUS. I think we have at least a 50/50 shot so long as our pragmatic CJ can demonstrate to Kennedy that this is a workable opinion. All in all very exciting news.