TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:Well, they'd first have to get over the wall they laid themselves in Heller:

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

Very true. And all very good arguments for the case. And personally, I agree. Yet, with all that, still four of the nine justices disagreed.

Andy, I'm not arguing with you, all I'm saying is that a Supreme Court decision, no matter how well thought out and correct it seems to be at the time, CAN be overturned by a later Supreme Court. It may not happen often, and it may not be easy to do, but it can happen. I try not to get worked up about what MIGHT happen, but I do like to sometimes explore the possibilities, just as a simple mind exercise, I suppose.

And as far as the militia idea, I'm not saying it's a great idea - I had just never considered that angle before.

The militia thing was just presented here just as an idea for discussion. That's what I like about this forum. Always plenty of ideas! And that's a GOOD thing!

AndyC wrote:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia" - US Supreme Court, DC v. Heller 2008

True. For now. But for how much longer?

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/arti ... ndividual/

...Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer waxed philosophical on the Second Amendment, arguing—with a straight face—that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect your individual right to own a gun to protect yourself in your own home...

... also said that in his opinion, the constitutional provision [2nd Amendment] merely prevents Congress from disbanding state militias, which, he concluded with a flourish, “is not the right of an individual to keep a gun next to his bed.”

... the Supreme Court is now apparently deadlocked, 4-4, with half the court agreeing with Breyer, and the other half agreeing that the right to arms is an individual right. The next president will tip the balance with his or her choice to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

An interesting idea that may need to be considered based on the direction the country seems to be headed.

If it's already been mentioned somewhere else here, my apologies.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... esist.html

Basically, the article talks about the probability that sooner or later, we certainly will have a Democrat president, and Democrat House & Senate. When that happens, they may have the opportunity to appoint one or more new Supreme Court justices. That future Democrat controlled legislature will also almost certainly eventually pass very restrictive, sweeping gun laws, which will be upheld by the new liberal Supreme Court.

The writer's proposed solution would be for the states to exercise their rights to pass state legislation to create a formal state militia, of which all legal gun owners would be automatically included. Then there could be no argument that the 2nd Amendment does definitely apply to those gun owners, because they are the legally defined militia, as mentioned in the 2A.

Of course, there are other considerations. Check out the short article. It's an interesting read.

So what are your thoughts on the idea?