[45Auto]

I haven't read the whole case, but if legitimate, it does present some interesting possibilities. Also, the article incorrectly states that the 2nd "confers" an individual RKBA; it does no such thing. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it merely [if such a word could be used for such an important topic]REITERATES what the Founders considered "natural, god-given and or inalienable" rights.

[Alas Babylon!]

Well, I'd really like to see this go to the Supremes. But if only 1% of 7,000 are the odds, I won't hold my breath waiting.

[Fast 1975]

Better idea to wait for a few vacancies to be filled. Four solid liberals on the court, and I definitely do not trust O'Connor or Kennedy on a ruling on this.

[Notforprophet]

If this case goes to the SCOTUS, it'll be another 5 to 4 ruling in favor of the individual right to bear arms. But I won't hold my breath waiting for SCOTUS to pick it up.

[El Gato]

REITERATES what the Founders considered "natural, god-given and or inalienable" rights.

Most importantly, it protects those rights from Govermental infringement. Or it's supposed to, legislation and judicial rulings since about 1934 not withstanding.

[Eastbound]

Re: United States v. Emerson. If the Fifth Circuit court did indeed use the word, 'confers,' and the USSC let it stand, it seems that would serve as a basis to convey the impression that rights are indeed conferred by government , laying the groundwork for the time the government may find it advantageous to 'un-confer' a right.

If the Supreme Court had decided to hear the Emerson case, it would have had to rule in favor of the U.S. by saying the Second Amendment does not convey the right to KABA. One would hope that the court would have gone further if it did hear the case by finding that the Second Amendment guarantees that right, recognizing and confirming pre-existing rights.

I think the Costerus v. Swift petition may be unique enough to be heard, but I'm not going to hold my breath either. It's one thing that government does not want to resolve, because it wants to retain the upper hand on gun control at any cost.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

Ten other states also have similar so-called "may issue" statutes. "Discretionary statutes are subject to the arbitrary interpretation or the capricious abuse of discretion of licensing authorities. Worse, they are ripe for discrimination."

What other states have horrible "may issue" statute laws for the 2nd Amendment?

[taxcontrol]

IMO, this is a cleaner "test case" than Emmerson. The clear question here is the limit of State's authority to control the RKBA. I hope that SCOTUS will take take the case as I feel that it will be 5-4 in our favor. However, I would like to see at least one more of "our" judges on the bench.

I hope that the ruling determines that the State's and Fed's rights to limit arms can be no more restrictive than the right of the state to control the ownership and carry of a Bible or newspaper.

For example, owning a newspaper is fine but if you use it to start an illegal fire..... (use of a firearm to commit a crime)

Time to return some common sense to the gun issue.