[ZULU]

"Although scholars long have noted the ambiguity of the 27-word amendment, courts generally have interpreted the right to "keep and bear arms" as applying not to individuals but rather to the "well-regulated militia" maintained by each state."

It as ambiguous as the meaning of the word "is".

And I don't believe the Courts have been unanimous in referring to this as a collective right and I believe that just recently a Federal Court Decision recognized it as an individual right.

The Constitution is quite clear when referring to individual rights, states' rights and the Federal Government's rights and the Second Amendment was clearly intended to be an individual right.


This is the fruit of "loose construction", giving a bunch of black-robed attorneys who are also political hacks the right to distort the obvious intent of the Founding Fathers.

I hope Bush and his attorneys and Ashcroft stick this through to the bitter end.

[need_a_screen_name]

"And I don't believe the Courts have been unanimous in referring to this as a collective right and I believe that just recently a Federal Court Decision recognized it as an individual right."


That is very true. It has been far from unanimous. Even the 1939 Miller decision (that most anti's cite) only stated that a sawed off shotgun was not weapon commonly used by the military and therefore was not a militia weapon.

The 5th Circuit in New Orleans recently came down with a well written individual rights interpretation with the Emerson decision.

Of course we have the most overturned Circuit in the country saying it is a collective right.

[neverdem]

And I don't believe the Courts have been unanimous in referring to this as a collective right and I believe that just recently a Federal Court Decision recognized it as an individual right.

IIRC, the 5th Circuit had dicta, i.e. an addendum which is a formal statement of opinion, after their decision in the Emerson case from Texas that stated it was an individual right. The 9th Circus made a decision which stated their is no individual right in their decision, not subsequent dicta.

IIRC, The U.S. Supreme Court declined to decide the Emerson case, sending it back to the District Court where it originated for a ruling which was more clarified for legal precedent.

[45Auto]

Both the 9th Circuit in the recent Silviera case and the DC Circuit in the case involving people who wanted to overturn DC's total gun ban (I forget the name of the case - probably can find it at the NRA website) ruled for the nonsensical BS collective right crapola; the earlier 5th Circuit Emerson case made a strong historical and contextual argument for the only rational interpretation, i.e., individual rights.