KY opinion on right to arms
At the Volokh Conspiracy, Gene Volokh has a post regarding a recent decision of the Kentucky Supreme Court on the right to arms.
The issue is narrow -- whether a felon-in-posession statute violates the state right to arms, and of course the court rules that it does not. But the discussions are indicative of how far the legal aspects of the right to arms have evolved over the past few decades. The court does not blow off the issue, but discusses details such as the state's changing the provision, in the 1890s, from all citizens have the right to all men have the right. It cites law review articles and Fifth Circuit caselaw. The concurring opinion points out that the Pennsylvania minority report called for a federal bill of rights that would forbid disarming citizens "except for crimes committed..." The dissent points out that many felonies do not involve offenses suggestive that the person would misuse a gun (citing a manslaughter conviction of a woman who told a child it was all right to cross the street, following which a driver struck the child), cites Bliss v. Commonwealth, Blackstone, and Justice Thomas' concurrence in Printz, and details the debates in the state constitutional convention of 1890 (including debates over whether to use "men" or "persons," wherein the argument was made that "men" is generic and includes women). The dissenting Justice argues that while the ban might be upheld as to serious felonies, those that would call into question whether a person could be trusted with arms, it should not be upheld as a blanket ban.
The key point to me is that this shows how the right to arms has come to be taken as a serious legal issue -- it's no longer simply a "aw, it must mean the National Guard," or "subject to reasonable regulation, meaning anything short of banning every person from owning any gun" issue.