I would not be surprised if they gave a very narrow ruling similar to what you mentioned in your post, but what I think many people fail to realize is that the oral arguments are not a good indication of how the justices will rule. I don't know how many people followed the "Bong Hits For Jesus" Case, but the justices essentially made light of the whole situation and asked ridiculous questions about what speech should be stopped. Many thought that they made the school look foolish, but the ended up voting against the student.

They only listen to arguments for an hour (a little longer in this case) and then have months to think about it before writing an opinion.

The Bong Hits case was incredibly stupid, and I don't blame the SC for making light of it. Everyone I know certainly did, too.

This gun thing, though, will possibly have big-time ramifications.

It isn't reasonable because government has been given no authority to apply such restrictions. THAT is what I have an issue with.
You could anyway. AZ allows open carry of weapons.
I agree.
How do you figure?
I see them as merely a tool. You have not defined how the mere presence of one is an overt threat. Do you believe an armed police officer is an overt threat by his simple presence?
So until the law changes you do not believe you have to explain how the mere ownership of a weapon is an overt threat, but yet you expect us to believe you think it is?
No it really ISN'T all that vague. What has happened it has been obfuscated by people with an agenda and a desire to ignore the plain language of the law knowing they could never get it repealed.
Why? He'd be free to do that in a LOT of states - yours included.

In truth, anyone who COULD walk around with all that would be quite deadly even unarmed. You just described well over 100lbs of weapons and ammunition.
Nope - i guess there isnt.
If you want there to be parameters, then work to AMEND the Constitution - not ignore it.
If the owner of the plane chooses to forbid it, that is his right. If the government prohibits me from it, then my rights have been violated.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Like when murder rates go down in DC because law-abiding citizens will legally be able to defend themselves?

Yeah, that's gonna be awesome.

__________________


Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

The more the state 'plans' the more difficult planning becomes for the individual. - F.A. Hayek

-The Ludwig von Mises Institute
-Ron Paul 2008
-The Constitution of the United States of America
-I am the NRA

Round and round we go.

Ah well. Have fun.

I submit that many of the gun owners who enjoy reciting that, love to leave off that first part.

Typically, they are not in a militia, not very regulated, and possibly not well, either.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

and, according to the text, one does not need to be part of a well regulated militia in order to bear arms.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

The very heart of the debate is that one can read it that you DO.

That little comma, and the terrible grammar have been quite problemmatic.

Be interesting to see if the SC tackles it, or wimps out.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

Where did it say that being in a well regulated militia was a requirement to owning a gun? It just says that it would be a good idea for a state to have one, and also says that states may not infringe on the individual right to bear arms.

__________________


Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

The more the state 'plans' the more difficult planning becomes for the individual. - F.A. Hayek

-The Ludwig von Mises Institute
-Ron Paul 2008
-The Constitution of the United States of America
-I am the NRA

Well, it seems, at least to Justice Kennedy (a vital swing vote), that the little comma means nothing:


"In my view, (the Second Amendment is) saying there is a general right to bear arms, quite without reference to a militia," Kennedy said.

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 03/18/2008 | Supreme Court justices critical of D.C. gun ban

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

Well, there you go. They're the legal experts, so whatever they say goes, any disagreement I may have notwithstanding.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

What disagreement do you have? Why is a ban on handguns nessecary and why is Justice Kennedy wrong?

__________________


Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

The more the state 'plans' the more difficult planning becomes for the individual. - F.A. Hayek

-The Ludwig von Mises Institute
-Ron Paul 2008
-The Constitution of the United States of America
-I am the NRA

That the comma is separating two independent clauses, as opposed to just further description of the militia's establishment.

It has been read both ways, wth force and fervor.

No, I am not going to laboriously rehash well-known arguments about that. You know good and well what the arguments are. If you truly are confused as to why many people argue against handguns, look it up in wiki or whatever, and go from there.

Again, because I read the Amendment differently, obviously.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

As we see, this is exactly why there is debate, there are multiple ways to read the Amendment. Each side thinks its interpretation is the correct one, but the mere existence of debate proves that there is not a single definitive reading of the text.

This is why this has the potential to be such a landmark case as it could effectively wipe out one side of the debate. I personally hope it does so that we can finally put this to rest and stop having it come up every time the left and right go at each other.

My personal belief is all this debate is caused by a simple spelling mistake. The summer when the Constitution was written and debated was terribly hot, and air conditioning was unavailable. Therefore the Founders included the amendment to ensure wearing of short sleeved shirts was allowed, "the right to bare arms shall not be infringed"