Dare I hope?
Dare I dream?

At this time, a collective rights opinion is simply unthinkable. An individual right interpretation is assumed to be in the bag among gun owners. Anything else will cause states to secede.

The only question is what other tidbits the opinion might hold, such as level of scrutiny.

Chris: we lost the right to secede in the Civil War. Since then the Fed has taken more and more rights away because who do they answer to? Think about taking personal property (land/home)and giving it to companies because the companies will increase ratables.

There was nosecession then and the legal response to that was tepid at best.

You are correct there is no right to secede.

But then there is always the Declaration. That covers what might MIGHT! need to be done.

After all that is what the 2ed is for and the reason it was put as part of the Bill of Rights.

Pray for the Best. Prepare for the worst.

)(#@^^%()#, the price of ammo is high!

There was never any right to secede. And the South's act of secession is what helped create a larger Federal government in response to their craziness.

My comment was a little more edgy, and less professional, that Mr. Hardy's:

Dear Allen:

Isn't this nice, finding middle ground. And, so timely, too.

I don't wish to detract from your optimism, which is an attitude that I support. But you must fully realize that lawful gun owners have had quite enough of "Brady Campaign-style" middle ground and compromise. It's really quite nice, and convenient, that you're calling for that now, when the Brady status-quo all along has been to incessantly call for one restrictive measure after another, all in the name of compromise and "common sense." Given the trajectory of the Brady's strategy, there would, or could, have been no other possible ending-point than the complete criminalization of firearm ownership in the United States.

And those of us who know the issue fully realize that. Now, at long last, it's time for some common sense constitution-style.

You are certainly stretching for clues that the Supremes might support the Brady's position - which in truth would have rendered the entire amendment into utter meaninglessness. Yes, Roberts hinted that he might ponder trigger locks...just before he joked that during an emergency, one would have to turn on their light and put on their reading glasses before fumbling with a trigger lock in the middle of the night, while facing the uncertainty and stress associated with a burglar in the sanctity of one's home. For you to say he'll support the trigger lock position is a bit of a stretch. But hey...you should go with what you've got.

Finally, you state that the meaining of the amendment is in the eye of the beholder...that it's a "toss-up." How nice - it appears that seveal of DCs amici took that befuddled approach, including that group of cunning linguists.

But just remember this - one doesn't have to be a law professor or a PhD to understand that the militia clause re-affirmed the importance and necessity of a citizen's militia, while the guarantee clause stated in no uncertain terms that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Thanks for your article, I had fun with it.

I'm no lawyer, but Montana's Secty of State says they *will* secede if Heller comes down as a collective right.

Link

"...A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of “any person” to bear arms, clearly an individual right

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms

As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states..."

My comment posted at the article reposted below:

"If the Court wisely heads for the sensible middle ground, everybody will win."

The biggest problem with this statement is that Mr. Rostron's idea of the middle ground is not sensible. Mr. Rostron believes that an individual right subject to the lowest level of judicial scrutiny is the middle ground. Under this level of review, D.C. could pass virtually any law so long as it could articulate a rational basis for the law. (e.g., the legislature has found that shotguns are more effective for home defense; laws outlawing possession of handguns would have a rational basis) Accordingly, an opinion from the Court that found an individual right not tied to the militia, but subject to rational basis scrutiny, would be a pyrrhic victory for people who support the right to keep and bear arms.

There is a fundamental disconnect between what Mr. Rostron believes are reasonable regulations and what supporters of the right to keep and bear arms view as reasonable regulations. Moreover, Mr. Rostron believes that the middle ground should be measured from where we are today. This position ignores the fact that gun laws have been accumulating for the past 225 years. From the perspective of supporters of the right to keep and bear arms, Mr. Rostron's mythical middle ground was reached decades ago. Now it's time for the pendulum to swing back towards the middle ground and away from the unreasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms that have been enacted due to the advocacy of Mr. Rostron and his former employer.

Secession is the ultimate opt out. The ability to opt out from government 'services' and the taxes that pay for them defines sovereign freedom. For example my budget doesn't have room for illegal aliens, and all their asociated upkeep. I for one wouldn't miss them if they were gone completely. The income tax was never properly ratified so technically it has no power in law. Whats the difference between revenue and plunder?

State secession was never and is not now an illegal act. If it were at least some of the leaders of the Confederacy would have been tried for treason. That did not happen because the attorneys for the federal government knew they couldn't win the case. They sure as heck didn't refrain from pressing treason charges against General Lee and President Davis out of the goodness of their hearts. Secession is now rarely ever considered because people know that the federal government will kill you if you try.

Con-con!
Constitutional Convention, that is. I can think of a dozen states right off the bat that would immediately begin delegate selection, and I can think of two or three that might call their legislatures into Special Sessions to do it (AZ, NH, WY, MT, ID, VA, etc).
Faced with the prospect of having the entire Constitution up for grabs, Congress would probably pass an amendment to make the 2A explicitly and unambiguously an individual right, and rush it to the state legislatures for ratification.

"reasonable restrictions"? sounds like an Oxy moron ....... how can one be the other ?

The bill of rights exlains that the rights are for the people ...individuals ( not collective)

What is "resonalbe" about restrictions ?? who has the authority to created such "restrictions"?

yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is the argument for the 1st amendment...

then the only equiv.. on the 2nd amendment would be not restricting types of arms or ammunition but rather one can not go and randomy shoot at people for no reason at all.

but NOT the banning of guns or poseesion of.

Ammo prices?

Yeah, 7.62 NATO 200 battle packs priced at $120 - $150, depending upon maker.

Remember when they were 3 for $35 each?

letalis,
Yeah but that was the good german stuff.

u guys r breaking my heart with those ammo prices.