[pitt45GAP]

I think in my late post last night, I may have been hasty.

Obviously the ruling in this case will decide the question "Is the 2nd ammendment a protected individual right"

The answer to that question is a fairly obvious one, yes.
Based on the questioning of the more "texturist justices" (Scalia, Alito and Roberts) it seems that will be a foregone conclusion with Justice Kennedy and Thomas siding with those 3.

In as much as reasonable regulation of the use of a right, in the terms of the questions asked, it opens up possible repealment of the 1986 ban if brought before the court. - Can a person be well trained in modern arms without access to modern arms? ie automatic weapons? I have no qualms about NFA 1934 - to me, although I am a deep seeded libertarian, it seems reasonable to restrict those to people in the same way in which i cannot drive a semi trailer truck with out a CDL. the 1986 law however is a ban over time as the auto sears wear out and are unable to be replaced.

What this decision will do, is force lower courts to use "Heller" as the standing precedent on bans of types of weapons, and the ability to bear them. For example as a formal CA resident, I was unable to purchase so called "assault rifles" or any gun with a magazine larger than 10 rounds. It would seem WHEN Heller is upheld and defined as an individua right that can only be reasonably regulated in two ways: One my right to personal arms for defense, and hunting, and my right to personal arms for training in order to be able to serve the militia. CA law would have to be thrown out as an AR 15 a rifle that the US has been using for almost 40 years is banned, I cannot be well trained in the use of a common "militia" arm by using a non military style arm.

what I see heller do in a purely legal context is actually Rule on the question at hand as saying "Individuals may not have their right to firearms be infringed with reasonable regulation" - it seems the reasonableness based on the transcript was comparing standard martail arms as a reasonable place to go.

I am just excited that for once the Government may not be able to overstep their authority and prevent us from our arms. I still dont see how there is even an argument here in purely constitutional form. 2A has 2 rights, one operator, and one inherent implication: The people have a right to own arms privately, they have a right to carry and bear such arms, the reason for this is to be well trained to join the militia in case of foreign invasion or domestic tyranny and the implcation of self protection.

Its amazing we need 9 IVY league educated judges to understand this ammendment when its so clearly explained in the federalist papers.