[Cboldt]

-- Then you argue that 2nd amendment is a “collective right”. It cannot be otherwise, if you argue that a state can pass a law that has the exact opposite effect. This argument means a citizen has no enforceable 2nd amendment right except on federal property. --

"Collective v individual" and "applies to the states or not" are two separate arguments. I'll add a third, and it's one that this thread overlooks.

The third argument is that RKBA does not depend on the 2nd amendment. And this is the position that the US Supreme Court took, in Presser.

SCOTUS in Presser v. Illinois: "... the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms ..."

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."

What irks the snot out of me is that the NRA does not disagree with the 2nd and 7th Circuit read and application of Presser. The NRA is equally feckless on the read and application of Miller.

[epow]

SCOTUS in Presser v. Illinois: "... the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms ..."

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.