"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
The states' brief for the respondent (the one in favor of the individual
right) has been filed. 31 states joined in it. It's available he


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...icus_texas.pdf

The states that oppose the individual rights (6 states joined it) had
already filed a brief, available he


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...cus_states.pdf

Again, the overwhelming number of organizations, states, and so on are
filing on behalf of the individual right:


When you hear what the side advocating for the amendment not being an
individual right it makes you wonder how they got even six states to go
for
it. The legal and historical evidence is all on the side of it being an
individual right so you really have to do some intellectual contortions to
take the other side.

No, it's not. Most of the legal "evidence" is on the side of it being a
collective right. The historical "evidence" tells us that the FFs generally
believed in an individual right. It does NOT tell you that they were
addressing that issue with the 2nd. In fact, the case is stronger that the
2nd was all about militias.

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the Constitution.
That's the main battleground in the Heller case.

It's beginning to look like the individual right
position is finally going to be accepted in the law.

Maybe. It's still a tossup. The Supreme Court will have to reach into the
"penumbras and emanations" to find for the individual right. That's the
approach that conservative jurists have scoffed at for four or five decades
now. If they reach into that Pandora's box to find for an individual right,
they'll have a hell of a time ever overturning Roe v. Wade, for example,
because that's what the Roe decision was based on, too.

It's not a simple situation. From all angles, this one is very complex, with
numerous potential unintended consequences.

It's about time. It's
been well known for decades that the position that the amendment only
referred to militias was completely bogus.

Nonsense. No one "knows" it to this day.

Read the petitioner's brief, Hawke. Then read a couple of the amici for the
petitioner. Those are the arguments on which most federal precedent
concerning the 2nd are based.

--
Ed Huntress