Sunstein would rather be struck by lightening than see the Supreme Court rule that the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual right, but if it does he will try hard to preserve the notion that they were just responding to current notions of constitutional interpretation and that the constitution as originally written did not mean to recognize an individual right. I have heard him make the argument that the current scholarship on the 2nd Amendment is a "fraud."

"Sunstein went on to say that 'as written, the First Amendment was never meant to protect the modern mega-churches that have become prevalent these days; nor could the Framers have envisioned the internet, satellite television and video conferencing. Any inference that the First Amendment covers these forms of religious expression or communication is clearly a modern revision to the Constitution in reaction to widespread current beliefs and values.' Sunstein further expressed the opinion that if enough people believed that the Earth was the center of the Solar System, it would eventually make it so."

I would re-write his last sentence thusly:

"If the Supreme Court finds an individual right to bear arms, it will not ONLY be speaking for the Constitution as it was written by those long dead; it will ALSO be CONFIRMING judgments that are now widespread among those now living."

"For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser."
KLEINFELD, Dissent from denial of
rehearing en banc Nordyke v. King,

The 2nd Amendment is about the inalienable human right to effective self-defense. By definition it has to start with the individual. It is a political statement, not particularly about guns but about any means to effective self-defense to be available whenever, wherever evil comes knocking, and the fact that without such a means, a body has no more rights than what a stronger person will allow them. that is not the freedom envisioned by the Founders, or I expect by most people today.

Being anit-gun is much easier than being anti-self-defense. They are different questions.

There are two key arguments that need to be made in DC v. Heller:

1. The primary original meaning of "militia", from the Latin, is military service, or, because it includes law enforcement and disaster response, defense activity, and only secondarily those engaged in it, or the subset of those who may be required to engage in that that activity. It is a common idiom in English of the founding era to use the same word for an activity and those engaged in it. Understood in this way, the word is not a plural form, and a single individual, engaged in defense activity, is engaged in militia.

2. The only regulation that is "reasonable" is regulation that enhances the effectiveness of militia.

I am seeking an amicus filer willing to make them in his brief. For more see http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2007/12/arguments-needed-in-dc-v-heller.html