It should be a no-brainer, given that the Supreme Court already ruled that.
I don’t think so. The SC ruled in the Heller case that owning and possessing a gun is an individual right. I think that the ruling left the definition of what the characteristics of a gun is up for regulation. The SC has run from the “assault weapon” issue.
But then, that's simple logic - something that the court often avoids at all costs.
Notwithstanding, a gun falls under the definition of an ‘Arm’, in a much as a ‘firearm’ or taser (each having their own sub-definition).
No offense to you specifically, but I loathe the attempt at parsing the Left.
SCOTUS can attempt to parse ‘gun’, but must fall under the general term, for which the definitive is absolute: “shall NOT be infringed.”.
A single page to the court, VERY few lines:
- The 2nd re-arms the INALIENABLE Right of We the People
- That for which has no specific authority (IE: infringe), all laws are null/void.
Case. Closed. Let the chips fall where they may. It would come as a surprise if they ruled against? What would that accomplish but being driven underground and/or a 2nd Revolution (LONG past time, IMO)?
They may not be able to run much longer. And they’re ever so slightly likely to feel bound by US v. Miller, which while a bad case, unequivocally found that US citizens have the right to keep and bear weapons of military utility.