[robertpaulsen]

"Do you see any potential benefits to having the SC hear the Heller case?"

Only the one I mentioned: If they find that the second amendment protects an individual right and they don't incorporate.

Since that decision only affects DC residents and still allows the federal government to regulate their weapons and require registration, it's a very small benefit.

Nowhere near what there is to lose.

Do you see it any differently?

[publiusF27]

I do see it differently. I think a favorable ruling could spark challenges to quite a few federal gun control laws, and some could succeed. Could 922 (o) survive a “strict scrutiny” test? How about a renewed “assault” weapons ban?

[xsrdx]

Call me crazy, but maybe they meant the people, who are part of a well regulated state militia, have their right to keep and bear arms protected from federal infringement. I always thought it was a militia that was necesary to the security of a free state, not an armed public.

A novel argument, but in reality by reserving the RKBA to the authority of the state government you are de facto infringing on the peoples right.

Can't have it both ways; your argument loses steam when you say it's ok for the state gov't to infringe away.

The "militia" was citizens with guns in their homes, not just armories; led by community leaders, not government agents.

Mason and Monroe did not envision the militia as a permanent standing army like the national guard is today, nor did they advocate ANY infringement -state, federal or otherwise - on the people's RKBA.