Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.
We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read bear Arms in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: Surely a most familiar meaning [of carries a firearm] is, as the Constitutions Second Amendment (keepand bear Arms) and Blacks Law Dictionary . . . indicate: wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person. Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning forbear Arms.
Unaddressed is how Washington D.C. v. Heller nee Parker will play out. The gun grabbers stifled themselves to win in 2006, but they seem to be coming out of the woodwork again. If the Second Amendment is upheld as an individual right, the GOP may lose a lot of single voters. Then again the gun grabbers might renew efforts on ammo control.
single voters = single issue voters
Drat
I don’t expect to see the GOP retake either house of Congress. But if they play their cards right and target their limited resources expertly, they can hold the losses down, or maybe even gain a seat or two.
My thoughts exactly. A clear victory for a personal right to keep and bear arms (which I hope for) may have the effect of causing some second amendment enthusiasts to be content and to leave the political process.