[tpaine]

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right, unlike "privacy rights" or various other "rights" that have been more or less "judicially legislated" under the guise of protecting "life, liberty" etc...
The point is, if it's not a guaranteed specific "right", then it's under the law, and the judiciary is not supposed to be making laws.
568 -88k-



The 14th addressed our specific rights to 'life liberty, and property':

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.
[See U.S. Const., Amend. 9.]

As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
    
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.

This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;

the freedom of speech, press, and religion;

the right to keep and bear arms;

the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."

[88keys]

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment...."

..."as the second Justice Harlan recognized"...

Therein lies the rub...whose "interest" and "broad" definition of the "continuum" of freedoms is not "arbitrary", but rather "reasonable and sensitive"?

Is it the proper role of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine this?