TexasCHLforum.com

Only recently has Miller been cited for the premise that the Second Amendment is a "collective right." I don't like seeing SAF buying into the Brady Campaign contention that the D.C. Court turned it's back on 70 years of appellate court decisions holding there is no individual right.

Chas.

tomneal wrote: NEWS RELEASE
SAF SAYS D.C. CIRCUIT DENIAL ON RE-HEARING OF PARKER CASE WAS RIGHT
BELLEVUE, WA –
. . .

“For almost 70 years, a state of confusion has existed over whether the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right, as we are certain it does, rather than affirming some convoluted ‘collective right’ of the states to form militias. That interpretation has been carefully fabricated over the years by anti-gun zealots whose ultimate goal is to strip American citizens of their firearms rights.

I respectfully disagree with this portion of Mr. Gottlieb's evaluation of the Parker Case. The "collective right" argument is not 70 years old; it is of recent vintage.

Chas.

kauboy wrote:Charles, in the text of the ruling in the PDF doc, the judges addressed that the founder's language of the 2nd Amendment clearly defines a guarantee of a pre-existing right. Wouldn't this help SCOTUS to view the 2nd as a "fundamental right"?

It certainly should. This is one of the reasons I believe it is a fundamental right. The problem will come from the knowledge that a fundamental right is virtually impossible to regulate, because of the strict scrutiny test. The Supremes may be unwilling to saddle Congress with this restriction.

Chas.

onerifle wrote:Chas- since there seems to be a clear split on indvidual vs collective rights between Circuit Courts, i.e., the Fifth and D.C. vs the Ninth and (I have forgotten which one), isn't this now a potential case which SCOTUS almost can't ignore?

The issue is becoming one that is harder for the Supreme Court to ignore, but it can choose the case it wants to hear. Parker may or may not be taken up by the Court. The Supremes could ignore any individual case until one comes along with the facts it wants.

Chas.

If the Supreme Court ultimately holds the Second Amendment to be an individual right, we face two possible futures, both good but one extremely good. (This assumes there is no constitutional amendment to change it.)

If the "right" is an individual right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions as are all rights. However, if it is found to be a "fundamental right," then it is much harder to craft a restriction that will be "reasonable." In fact, it’s almost impossible. This is called the "strict scrutiny test." For this reason, I doubt a Court will find it a "fundamental right" even though it clearly is in my view.

Chas.