mlm

This case opinion is interesting not in that it correctly interprets the intent of the 2nd amendment (many opinions do--especially those of the top federal courts) but that the judges took extra effort to comment on the individual rights nature of the 2nd amendment. It has become standard practice to mis-report that "the courts have ruled the 2nd amendment is a collective right for the past 60 years" when a cursory reading of the court opinions from Miller in the 30s forward all are consistent with the individual rights view. Often, Miller is cited as support for the collective rights view and it was not so. Miller tackled the issue of WHAT guns are allowed (and might not have done that had the defendent been able to show up for the case). Miller, and nearly all 2nd amend opinions, makes little sense unless the 2nd amendment is an individual right. The meaning of the 2nd amendment is well documented and can be compared to the many state bills of rights from the early years of the USA. They all express what the Emerson appeal expresses. Arguments to the contrary (including the suggestion by the NY Times that "this opens the door to more gun control") are utterly unsupportable.


In Emerson, the court chose not to avoid the issue. That is the startling difference here.