Which do you prefer, Emerson or a test of a right to own assault weapons?
Re: Emerson. The Appeals Court affirmed Cumming's ruling that the Second Amendment PROTECTS and indvidual right (very important to recognize that the Bill of Rights/Constitution doesn't grant a damn thing...that it protects that which we possess by virtue of our existence - natural/individual rights) to own firearms. It then went on to apply the wrong standard of analysis - the "rational basis" test. This test is easier to meet than the "strict scrutiny" test which is required to be applied to individual rights.
Re: Assault Weapons. Which definition will be used? The Military defines assualt weapons as those which can be switched from full auto to 3 round burst to semi-auto. The definition used by the 'grabbers and and the Courts is based upon cosmetics and the fact that a particular firearm is semi-auto.
If we had an honest Court, I would rather have them hear a ban on "assault weapons" because the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee the Right individuals to challenge a corrupt and despotic government through force of arms - therefore the Second Amendment grants a protection by it's original intent to weapons with military utility, i.e. "assault weapons" above all others.
The fools that cite Miller have never actually read the Government's brief in that case; or else they would keep as much distance between that case and their untenable position as possible.
I truly fear that SCOTUS will "split the baby" on this issue, rather than follow the Constitution. Such a decision will cause more harm than good and will force those of us that take our oaths to that Document seriously to re-examine the legitimacy of all three branches of Government in their current incarnation.
Cross your fingers. I have no desire to take a stand based on principle, but would do so because my oath before God demands that I do so.
But what happens if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the 5th and invalidates the NFA, GCA, and Brady Act? Some demented psychotic homeless liberal who-hears-voices-type yahoo will buy a machine gun and go shoot up an elementary school. Congress will hastily implement an unresearched vote-buying soccer-mom-appeasing knee-jerk act (like it always does -- see the establishment of the Homeland Security Agency as an example) and possibly just repeal the Second Fricken Amendment! The states will go along "for the children" (how many signed on to the stupid Equal Rights Act?). Then where will we be?
Although the above may be a little over the top, bear in mind "unintended consequences." What could be the unintended consequences of getting a strong RTKBA ruling?
Either 2A will work, or not. It will be a defining moment for our childrens future either way.
FReegards