2nd Circuit, in Bach v Pataki: "Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the states."
Don't those two opinions conflict with one another? Presser says in effect that the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms whether or not the 2nd restricts the states, yet the 2nd Circuit recently said that the states can impose a gun ban on it's people precisely because the 2nd doesn't apply to states. IOW the 2nd circuit cited the same reason why the states CAN restrict the right to keep and bear arms that the 19th century USSC gave for saying that the states CAN'T restrict that right. Could it be the reason why they don't agree is that Presser was decided in the 19th century before the judiciary became hostile to the right to keep and bear arms, and the Bach v Pataki decision was rendered earlier this year by a court that is obviously predisposed to deny the people that right? The Supremes need to get this straightened out ASAP and end the argument once and for all. Although, it seem that no right is guaranteed once and for all if it isn't popular with the current elitist way of thinking.
You noticed that? ROTFL. Yeah, they conflict all right. This very decision (Bach v. Pataki) was presented to SCOTUS for its consideration. Result? Cert. denied.
SCOTUS is not offended when the Circuits misread and misapply gun law. They sat idly by for 70 years while Circuit Courts turned Miller and Presser upside down. Then, when SCOTUS took up Heller's case, it turned it's own precedent, Miller, upside down.
And the NRA said "Whoopie! We won!"
Fargin' losers. They aren't even pissed off enough to educate the public about the legal travesty. They are playing footsie with an utterly corrupt federal court system; and saying "Thank you sir, may I have another."