Geez Louise. That's why I don't answer your questions.
I said if the U.S. Supreme Court did those things I listed, then they should not agree with the DC Court. Remember? You asked me how they SHOULD rule?
what is premature about bringing the issue before the Supreme Court?"
Well, we have the 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit on our side. We'll never get the 9th Circuit, but there's talk of splitting up the 9th. Over the years, we may get piecemeal favorable gun rulings from other Circuit Courts. State gun legislation continues to grow more favorable. Public opinion about guns and self defense is changing. The U.S. Supreme Court may become more conservative.
What's the rush? Why the showdown? Things are looking better than they ever have and you want to press the U.S. Supreme Court into making a once-and-for-all ruling?
Insanity.
I think you mean that the 5th Circuit and DC Circuit are on my side. Your "side" is that the Second Amendment only protects people who are members of a "well-regulated Militia". You're not on my side.
You do answer my questions. But I get a lot of DIFFERENT answers and many are WRONG. How can you state that the DC Circuit decision was not wrong in one posting and then turn around and say that the Supreme Court would be wrong to agree with it? Words have meanings, you know.
My use of the word "should" was to invite you to carry out your own process to decide what decision an ideal Supreme Court would make, based on your own determination of what "ideal" would be.
You DID answer that the correct ruling would be that "the Second Amendment only protects people who are members of a well regulated Militia".
You posted: "I don't believe [the Second Amendment] protects the people of DC unless they're members of a well regulated Militia."
But you also posted, "I would never say the DC Circuit Court was wrong."
Now, why would you not say that the DC Circuit was WRONG? It is completely opposed to what you believe that an ideal Supreme Court SHOULD decide.