Replies

I wasn't asked, but...

I think the phrasing of the question means we have already won. The "not affiliated" bit excises any discussion of the right as "collective"; if it is not an individual right (or at least has an individual component), then there is simply nothing to discuss.

That’s my thinking. It appears their wording recognizes RKBA as an inalienable, individual right.Then should RKBA be ruled as "inalienable" or a right "not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated", it means that right never was, is, nor ever will be intended to be lawfully transferred from the individual to a collective organization whether it be militia or government.

I have never understood how even the most flaming of liberal Supreme Court justices can hold that “the People” confers collectively for the 2nd when “the People” confers individually for the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th, and I would LOVE somebody here to finally explain to me the legal gymnastics that would be required to do just that.

I realize that circuit courts have held exactly to that collective view, but never heard an argument that reconciles how “the People” can mean different things in different places in the Constitution.

I will be absolutely baffled if even the flaming SCOTUS libs can find a collective right in the 2nd Amendment. I am terrified by the thought of them overturning Heller/Parker but just can’t see how they can rule the 2nd to protect anything BUT an individual right. I just can’t see it.