[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

SCOTUS with the Heller decision only invalidated these lower court diversions (which of course were the guiding law for 66 years).

I believe that's exactly what I had said...and that the Administration doesn't appear to be deviating much from guiding law.

Correct, they are sticking with the 1942 collective right / state militia right interpretation which was the predominant interpretation for 66 years. Them continuing to advance a theory abandoned by nearly all, has not made the philosophically, historically and legally correct "individual, fully retained right" interpretation, void.

An assertion like that (abandoned by nearly all) should really be backed up with data.

Are you arguing that given another term and the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court Justice (if not two) in the vein of Sotamayor and Kagan, and a subsequent SCOTUS ruling endorsing any aspect of the Heller dissents . . . That government action hostile to individual's gun ownership rights wouldn't immediately follow from the Executive and Legislative branches?

I think the Administrations behavior in the first two years where they had a majority in Congress is a good indicator of future behavior. Even with a second Obama term the likely hood of such a commanding position is unlikely.

Biding time is all that's happening right now. Heller and McDonald altered the timeline of the attack on the individual right to arms. Those hostile to the right to arms have not gone away nor have they had an epiphany and now embrace the principles of conferred powers and retained rights. No, these statists are just biding their time until a Court that leans that far left can be established and begin dismantling those impediments to their agenda.

The court of public opinion seems to consistently believe in the right of regulated gun ownership and most policy will likely chart along this course.

The reality is, no matter how hostile Obama or any member of Congress might be to individual gun ownership rights they are astute enough to not make matters worse for the left's agenda. Having another priority of the left under scrutiny by SCOTUS before the election is not conducive to victory.

Well sure, but in that light an aggressive (I don't think hostile is appropriate) position would only serve to undermine future Democratic elections.

For you to seemingly argue that this current national inactivity of anti-gun politicians (Obama included) somehow represents political acceptance and tolerance of gun owners rights is just laughable.

It's laughable if you're on the fringe. To the rest of us it's common sense.

The reality is that Democrats feel they have bigger fish to fry, oh, and a lot of them like to hunt also.

Well, if you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, the Court's decision on the question of whether the 2nd Amendment secures a collective right vs. an individual right came down on the individual right side 9-0.

Steven's dissent (which all members of the minority joined) said:

• "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."

Breyer's dissent (which all members of the minority joined) said:

• "In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."

The dissents just weaseled themselves into a position where they could dismiss or ignore the legal realities of that individual right determination. The dissents were focused on the standard of scrutiny and agreed that, under the standard envisioned and embraced by the minority, the DC laws would have been upheld . . . So, for the time being the question of what type of right the 2nd secures is closed (well, until it's time to revisit it).

Steven's dissent appears to be validating the right of the individual in context of how it has been historically been used. Certainly a member of a militia is an "individual" owning a weapon...but the Second Amendment, in simple to understand terms, states the individual has the right to own arms for that purpose. The right is granted for the purpose of the collective to be executed by the individual.

So yes, the individual has rights, but without a declaration of scope to those rights there's not a lot of benefit. Perhaps it could be used to overturn a total ban on all weapons, but it certainly doesn't say a state can't restrict gun ownership by the individual. 9-0 is a bit of spin...

To the whole thing about the Second Amendment not granting the right, I think it's more to state that the government can't go to far in efforts to keep us safe.

-spence