[Redbob]

But can the SCOTUS really have said this?
“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

Even I, historical ignoramus that I am, know the writing of the Bill of Rights, as the Constitution, followed the Revolutionary War, but preceded the Civil War by quite some time...

[M1928A1 Thompson]

Yes, when the post Civil War Congress was debating the 14th Amendment, one of the issues was Jim Crow laws in the outlawing gun ownership for blacks. Much in the Congressional Record in that vein.

[Roccus]

ICBW, but I’ll bet there was much discussion over whether or not to dis-arm Confederate soldiers, as well as the South after the War Between The States.

[Ancesthntr]

But can the SCOTUS really have said this? “It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

Even I, historical ignoramus that I am, know the writing of the Bill of Rights, as the Constitution, followed the Revolutionary War, but preceded the Civil War by quite some time...

Uh, the 14th Amendment was written, passed and ratified in the late 1860's. Brother Scalia just ruled on an incorporation case without even having a case or controversy in front of him...all that's necessary to bury state and local bans (including AWBs) is to have a case filed and brought before the Court. THANK YOU, JUSTICE SCALIA!!!

Additionally, I think that part of the reason this statement appears in the opinion is to show that nearly 100 years after the Revolution, the meaning was clear - implying very strongly that the recent collectivist interpretations of the 2nd are dead wrong.