[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[Gaffer]

I’ve got their ‘justifiable need’ right here.

[WhiskeyX]

Can anyone now think of a reason why a number of Supreme Court Justices are not now liable for impeachment for a breach of their oath of office with regard to the Constitution and its Second Amendment mandate a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms?

[Amendment10]

The states need to amend the Constitution so that the states can fire activist justices.

[andyk]

Only a true statist could possibly think that the right to bear arms had anything to do with behavior within ones own castle. It’s an absurdity.

[Salvavida]

Wow. A well-regulated militia stays indoors?

[frog in a pot]

Most here understand the 2d clearly recognized and protected our preexisting right to bear arms, and was thought an essential element for ratification of the proposed Constitution.

Clearly, that recognition and protection seems to be slipping away.

D.C. v Keller (the right to bear within one’s home, limited to federal enclaves) was a 5/4 decision.

McDonald v. Chicago, which extended “within the home” to the states, was a 5/4 decision.

Those are close calls under any view.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

The pre-Civil War SCOTUS ruled that one of the rights blacks would have if they were considered citizens of the USA was, “The right to go about armed wherever they went.”
Dred Scott vs Stanford.