very conservative majority ? ....a 5 -4 decision though a majority doesn't quite paint them as a overwhelmingly con court in my opinion...the 4 are , as you said quite con. With one sorta in the middle and 4 lefties…

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Maybe. The 4 cons do tend to pollute my opinion on the rest.

Although, Ginsburg's dissent on Ledbetter v. Goodyear was remarkably well written.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

In answer to the thread question

I do not believe they will , they would have to go against the constitution as it is written , the precedence of first mention in legal documentation ( the constitution and the preamble first use "the people " as the citizenry at at large.)

they would have to go against the precedence of the application of the constitution over the last 200 + years


and the millions of gun owners who all can understand plain english and the fact that the placement of the phrase , the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in commas denotes it as a stand alone statement / clause in the amendment.


plus the fact that the stepping on yet another freedom by our lately quite unconstitutional government- namely the one which protects all the rest - would probably lead to a revolution or at least severe civil unrest.

__________________
I just neutered the cat , now he is a Liberal

Except, of course, the significance of commas in the 18th century was a bit different than today.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Also they could actually read the federalist papers and the writings of the founders and see it actually stated that they viewed this as a individual citizen's right.

the commas as I stated meant exactly what I said they did then and now .

__________________
I just neutered the cat , now he is a Liberal

This case is not a guarantee that the SCOTUS will settle the meaning of the 2A.

The 2A reads as follows: "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."

The two competing arguments that consider all the language of the 2A, as they must for a court-quality discussion because language in the Constitution or any law cannot be totally ignored as if it was not there or is purely redundant, have always been pretty much the following:

1) The first clause states the purpose of the second and means the 2A recognises a right of people to individually bear arms so they can defend their state with a well-regulated militia,

versus

2) The first clause states the purpose of the second and means the 2A does not guarantee a personal non-militia right to own firearms but guarantees the people in each state to have an armed militia.

The unusual aspect to this particular case is that it is a D.C. ban. D.C. is not a state. It's under federal jurisdiction. Thus, the SCOTUS may very well hold that the 2A is inapplicable to the D.C. gun ban because it is not a state and quit there without deciding--once again--the ultimate issue everyone has wanted answered.

Except, of course, the Constitution was written with the purpose of ridding the budding nation of the Federalist papers and their government.

And, I know you really harbor anger at any sort of education, but if you'd bother to understand the evolution of language, you'd see that commas were used in 18th Century English as pronunciation guides, not for the separation of ideas. The scribe's change of several captializations and the placement of commas into the text that were not intended cannot be interpreted as having the same meanings more than two centuries later.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Damn. That's a really good point. I change my answer - this is what will happen.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I know that legal matters and apparently legal documents , aren't your strong suit

but a study of the use of language and punctuation in legal documents would probably serve you at least to get a better understanding of exactly what commas meant in such documents then and now.

__________________
I just neutered the cat , now he is a Liberal

that IS an outstanding point, and could very well be exactly how they escape making a ruling on the right itself in the country.

__________________
I just neutered the cat , now he is a Liberal

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Language evolves. The use of punctuation evolves. This is fact. Sorry if you don't like it.

How do you explain the differences between the original text and how the scribe wrote it?

Hell, how do you explain the difference in how we write our s from the 1770s?




Oh, and you're not trying to claim that you're a commie-killin biologist, metallurgist, chemist, linguist, and attorney, are you?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I made no claim at being a biologist , I studied quite comparable courses to anyone with masters degrees in a major university would i am sure .
while I am not an lawyer , I do see and have some acquaintance with the use of punctuation in legal documents as a matter of the conduct of my profession. and it was a topic of interest when I studied the US Constitution .

I have degrees in the courses I told you about , and have studied many other things in the more than half century I have been around... people who have a "native "( oh man, oh well I'll live with the pun ) curiosity and drive to learn do study many things in the course of their lives , unless they are so self limiting as to concentrate on one topic above all others.

I liked chemistry in high school so I took classes in that and physics , and metallurgy ( all became useful in my profession at times and more importantly allowed me knowledge to do chemical treatments and make custom modifications for the firearms I use and have and customize as a personal hobby and pursuit I enjoy- as well as a understanding and better ability to manufacture my own ammo for them.)



guess what ? I can blacksmith , shoe a horse , am a fair carpenter and am a good cook too .

__________________
I just neutered the cat , now he is a Liberal

What? Care to elaborate?

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Wait a seconond. The Federalist Papers were writen by Hamilton, Jay and Madison. They were written in support of the Constitution. It was the anti-federalists (who were really the true federalists) who were against the Constitution.

The dirty, rotten Federalists, wanted a new, more powerful government to replace the one under the Articles. Not many people wanted this, so three of them wrote letters to a NYC newspaper. These became known as the Federalist Papers.

Now, the Anti-Federalists were against this bigger government, and they insisted on several things, one being a Bill of Rights to further limit the power of government. Hence, the premable to the Bill of Rights which explains that the Bill of Rights are extra "restrictive" clauses.

Apparently, the Constitution and the Federalists were so popular, that for 12 years the Federalist Party ruled in Washington. So, the Constiution was not written to rid the country of the ideas expressed in the Federalist Papers, or the ideas of the Federalists. However, it was written for the purpose of limiting actual federalism.

By the way, Madison switched to Jefferson's party, the Democratic-Republicans, during Adams' tenure in office, I believe.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

you get a cookie and move to the head of the class .

seriously I appreciate someone who actually knows some history.

__________________
I just neutered the cat , now he is a Liberal