[robertpaulsen]

"it should apply the 2nd Amendment to protect individuals from oppression by the states"

Exactly. Just like the U.S. Supreme Court used the first amendment to protect us from hearing that boring political speech in the months preceeding an election. And isn't it wonderful that all states must allow nude dancing and flag burning because that IS protected speech.

Or how they protected us from those religious zealots who want to establish religion by keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or setting up a creche at Christmas Winter Holiday Season in the town square, or invoking God's name at high school commencement.

Yep. I think we can expect those same justices to expand our gun freedoms. There's no way they're going to rule that "keep" means keep in a state armory, or that "bear" does not mean concealed carry, or that "arms" do not include handguns.

No way.

[publiusF27]

There's no way they're going to rule that "keep" means keep in a state armory, or that "bear" does not mean concealed carry, or that "arms" do not include handguns.

What if they did? I'm not in the National Guard, so right now my right to keep my arms enjoys no 2A protection (except the pointed stick). My FL concealed weapons permit enjoys no 2A protection right now. In DC, they can't have a handgun, and the Brady Bunch say that's just fine, and represents the prevailing interpretation of the 2A.

[donmeaker]

Since I go to tax court Monday, I am well aware of the shortcomings of the Judicial System.