[ctdonath2]

The essence of RP’s premise was that the 2nd Amendment only restrained the feds, and protected active members of militias. Unfortunately, he refused to accept the logical straightforward consequences of his premise.

I’m surprised he lasted so long.
On one hand, he proved an interesting stone to hone my arguments on.
On the other hand, he was ... well, his posts had to be responded to lest the more gullible be persuaded (and I saw that happen a few times).

How he ever managed to spend SO MUCH TIME promoting a single narrow (and widely refuted) viewpoint is beyond me. I don’t think he’ll know what to do with himself now.

[Dead Corpse]

It's worse than that. He excuses Federal infringement as well despite his protestation that it is only a check on Fed action. He cites the "penumbras and emanations" from the commerce clause, even though such an idea violates the finding of the SCOTUS from BAILEY v. DREXEL FURNITURE CO. 259 U.S. 20 (1922) that a mere Tax authority cannot be used as a prohibition:
It is defendant on the ground that it is a mere excise tax levied by the Congress of the United States under its broad power of taxation conferred by section 8, article 1, of the federal Constitution. We must construe the law and interpret the intent and meaning of Congress from the language of the act. Does this law impose a tax with only that incidental restraint and regulation which a tax must inevitably involve? Or does it regulate by the use of the so-called tax as a penalty?

This means the closing of the NFA registry moved it from arguably a legitamate TAX, to a prohibition and therefore illegal.

This is just one of MANY tangential arguments bandied about around this issue.

The bottom line is still this:

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

End of story...

[robertpaulsen]

"The essence of RP’s premise was that the 2nd Amendment only restrained the feds"

That's what the DC Circuit Court in Parker said -- and they cited four federal court cases to support that. Are they wrong also?