A Bogus "Settled Question"

“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm. [More]

Bull, and Bogus of all people, fraudulently pretending the academic/legal scholarship high ground belongs to him, knows better.

From Dred Scott:

It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

And from William Rawle:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. 

And lest we forget Cruikshank, reiterated in Heller:

The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed...”

 
[Via Mack H]

Harry F. Hambrick Jr. Is Not So Clear

What's clear is that the U.S. Supreme Court in the recently decided Heller case has ruled that the Second Amendment does grant the right to bear arms to individuals. [More]

Stop right there.

Right up front in your rant it says "Hambrick is a lawyer in Roanoke."

Did you read the opinion you're presuming to instruct us on, specifically the part that says:

As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

?

The Bloomberg Grant

The Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions. The question is: What should those restrictions look like? [More] 

See, that's what statists think--that "rights" come from government.  And because they're surrounded by toadies and have constituents who let them get away with anything as long as the redistribution keeps coming, arrogant megalomaniacs like this operate under the illusion that "L'Etat c'est moi."

The thing is, the very case he cites, as well as long-established precedent, specifically repudiate his prefatory assertion:

As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . . 

Which means, of course, that he's LYING, and there are no "Authorized Journalists" either informed or honest enough to call him on it, or to let those relying on them for complete reporting know about it--but in this case, the tinpot is using his own megaphone, which creates an ethical conundrum of its own: How can the press be government watchdogs if the press is the government?

As for what "those restrictions should look like," I suppose if a citizen militia needed to be activated in time of emergency, we'd want to bring suitable equipment with us (meaning we'd have to possess it in the first place), to assemble and deploy under standards of training and discipline, and to fit in to a chain of command so that our efforts could be coordinated to best restore a system where freedom is protected and can be exercised in peace.

Think Furious Mike would go along with that?

HELLER AFFIRMED

UPDATE: OPINION HERE

UPDATE: Door left open for infringements (you knew they would):

f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

UPDATE: Chicago next?

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

UPDATE: Licensing and registration not deemed infringements (technically, "not addressed"):

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

UPDATE: Personal comments:

This is pretty much the outcome most of us expected--an individual rights ruling that leaves the door open for gun control--although at what level remains to be seen. I'm no lawyer and will be interested in seeing what people in the know have to say, but my untutored read on this says the scrutiny question has been dodged.

The other thing that immediately sticks out for me is this business of not addressing licensing and registration--theoretically, that leaves such laws open to future challenge--but here's the thing--there's nothing that says a future court needs to hear such a challenge, and I would expect them to not touch this with a 10-foot pole.

There's one other thing I've been meaning to say, but held off pending the decision: If this had been left up to our "leaders" at the NRA, specifically Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, we would not have this ruling.

This case was not initiatedby NRA, and in fact the Association and some well-know names in 2A legal circles attempted to derail it. NRA did not join until after it was clear things were going forward.

We would have been facing the strong potential for an Obama presidency and democrat congress with no ruling, and the almost certain liklihood that new Supreme Court appointments would significantly alter the composition of the court's narrow 5-4 pro-individual rights contingent.

Fairfax apologists can go ahead and accuse me of "attacking" NRA, but it's the truth and they know it. And it's a hell of a thing for any serious gun rights activist to come to grips with.

UPDATE:
Brady Campaign

Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case.

Because if we could admit we were wrong, we wouldn't be fanatics.

Violence Policy Center:

...Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has done his part to make sure that, at least in the U.S., the future for his gun industry friends and their lobbying pals is a little bit brighter.

Hell hath no fury...

UPDATE: Guess who agrees with me about Chicago?

UPDATE: Mr. Hardy skims some key points--as always, good insights.

UPDATE: Fenty Foolishness [This update link via Zachary G] :

*First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.

*Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.

*Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home...

We knew that, but it's important to hear it from him just so we can see that he's intent on infringing as much as possible. I'd also look at the DC administration to drag their feet to the brink of stonewalling. SCOTUS will be out until October and I'd look at Fenty & Co. to take full advantage of that.

But here's the part that demonstrates what absurd theater this is more than anything I could say:

In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.

I call on Mayor Fenty to physically demonstrate what that would look like. Any bets on whether any of the "Authorized Journalists" with access to him will press him in a public forum on just how the hell someone would be able to protect themself that way?

UPDATE: This is troubling, pointed out by Uncivil Defense from the footnote on pg. 48 (see "Opinion" link, above):

Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

UPDATE: Yep--expect this to be one of the anti's major new rallying points:

City officials expressed confidence the city would prevail in any court challenge, asserting, among other things, that the 2nd Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government and does not apply to state and local governments.

Before, it was there's no individual right. Now it's there is, but it doesn't apply to what we can do.
If that's upheld in a liberal appeals venue, SCOTUS would need to agree to hear another 2A case to get it resolved.

A Preexisting Condition

[More]

Speaking of preexisting conditions:

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”

[Via George P]

But No One Wants to Take Your Guns, You Paranoids

Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment [More]

That, of course, would have no bearing on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms  -- even the Supreme Court has had no choice (so far) but to acknowledge:

The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed …

Figures, this Opposite Day "progressive" fraud brags that he "teach[es] the Constitution for a living."  In other words, he misdirects his ignorant young victim to con them out of their birthrights and into his collectivist cult.

Things are getting incredibly dangerous. We may be finding out which of us are meatspace-serious sooner than we've been dreading will happen.

Those who poured gasoline on the flames they lit need to be remembered.

[Via Michael G]

But No One's Talking About Taking Your Guns

(Give her some credit here — at least she realizes a repeal is the only (legal) means by which gun rights can be eliminated.) [More]

The College Fix spreading such nonsense is actually a greater danger than the lunatic prof, because their readership dismisses her with deserved ridicule but trustingly swallows their assertions. I guess they never learned:

“The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." 

[Via Michael G]

Unclear on the Concept

"Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms. He's sitting in an Embassy in London. He's not a US citizen," Pompeo said. [More]

Remember the acknowledgement about 2A from Cruikshank that was cited in Heller?

“[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

ALL people have rights. They are "endowed by our Creator" (or inherent to the condition of being human for you secularists out there).

The fact that usurpers ignore that, and presume individual entitlements are privileges they have "authority" to  bestow or withhold, reflects on them.