D.C. Argues Gun Rights Only For Militias

[gc70]

If the court rules against DC, accepting the individual rights argument, that will bring it into direct conflict with the 9th Circuit, which has adopted the collective argument. The Supremes won't be able to dodge that one!

Too late. The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the individual rights interpretation in US vs Emerson and SCOTUS denied cert.

 

[thexrayboy]

They may be dragged to it kicking and screaming. IIRC, when two Federal appellate courts issue conflicting rulings, the SC must rule on the case.

Actually they do not. The SCOTUS has full and complete autonomy in deciding what if any cases they accept. Just because two different circuit courts have issued opposing views does not mean they have to rule on it.
Should they deal with opposing rulings. As a rule that is what they exist for.
Do they HAVE to? No. They get to choose.

My earlier statement about them avoiding this like the plague still stands.
Its a definite no win situation for them so they are not going to play.

 

[ksnecktieman]

I have a problem with the NEED to evaluate, translate, or interpret the second amendment. It was not originally written in chinese, or Russian, it was written in English, and it is my opinion if you can read it, you can understand it.
From what has been said here, and elsewhere, Hugh Damright, has a different meaning of it. He seems to read it like this.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by the states, the counties, the cities, the towns, the preciincts, or the neighborhood watch groups."

Personally, I like it this way.

 

[Molon Labe]

Something else to keep in mind, while you're at it:

"Individual right" is not synonymous with "fundamental right." A court can rule you have an individual right to bear arms, while at the same time rule you do not have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Bottom Line

Something else to keep in mind, while you're at it:

"Individual right" is not synonymous with "fundamental right." A court can rule you have an individual right to bear arms, while at the same time rule you do not have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Regardless of "fundamental" and/or "Individual", the Second Amendment forbids infringement of it. That is the ground to stand on.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood