[Dead Corpse]

It was a "positive" ruling by Ginsberg as regards to the language of the BoR and its scope. She could hardly go back on such language since they quote her directly in the Parker/Heller decision.

It'd mean she either lied then, or would be lying now...

[robertpaulsen]

"It was a "positive" ruling by Ginsberg as regards to the language of the BoR and its scope."

The case had nothing to do with the language of the BoR or its scope. The case had nothing to do with the second amendment or its scope.

The case concerned the language of 18 USC section 924(c)(1) -- a person who "uses or carries a firearm". The defendant had a firearm locked in the glove compartment of his car. The question to the court was, "Does that constitute "carry" and, therefore, violate 18 USC section 924(c)(1)?

Now, maybe you can tell me how Ginsburg's ruling (no) in that case means she will rule that the second amendment protects an individual right to keep and bears arms?