Replies

As Stuart Taylor explained in National Journal, since the Supreme Court last ruled on the Second Amendment in 1939, most courts and legal scholars have held: “The amendment’s first clause means that its sole purpose was to guarantee each state a collective right to have self-armed private citizens available as a military force-in-waiting (militia) to fight off federal encroachments; therefore, the second clause protects no individual right; state militias long ago became defunct; so the Second Amendment is an inoperative historical anachronism.”

First of all, in the 1939 Miller case, the defendant's lawyer didn't even show up. The Feds won by default.

Secondly, the vast majority of Law Reviews on the Second Amendment hold it to be an individual right, sometimes very reluctantly. The only ones that don't were funded by anti-gun benefactors. (If any global warming study funded by "Big Oil" is automatically invalid, than any 2nd Amendment study by "Big Disarmament" should likewise be deemed automatically invalid).

Comprehensive Bibliography Of The Second Amendment In Law Reviews

Thirdly, even Alan Dershowitz reluctantly admits the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals.

Analyzing The 2nd Amendment

"First of all, in the 1939 Miller case, the defendant's lawyer didn't even show up. The Feds won by default."

The Miller court made no ruling. The case was remanded to the lower court. No one "won" or "lost".

"Secondly, the vast majority of Law Reviews on the Second Amendment hold it to be an individual right"

Which means diddley-squat. The vast majority of lower federal courts and lower federal court decisions hold it to be a collective right. If the U.S. Supreme Court takes this case, what will they consider -- law reviews or lower federal court decisions?

"Thirdly, even Alan Dershowitz reluctantly admits the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals.

He said, "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

I would not conclude, from that statement, that Alan Dershowitz admits the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals. And even if he did, who is Alan Dershowitz? If he said it was a collective right would that mean anything to you?