Missing is the fact that the second amendment talks about possession, ownership, and carrying. It is an absolute right .... just like the government can not ban typewriters or voices.

It does not protect the use of the gun. Just like the 1st Amendment, does not protect screaming fire to cause a panic.

Its a simple concept that seems to be lost in all of the lawyering.

Exactly...So when the constitution says "SHALL NOT" we are being led to believe they have a different standard of Review only because the Government like's one Right over the other. That is the definition of Arbitrary and Tyrannical government.

I cannot see how laws infringing a right specifically listed in the Bill of Rights need only pass "rational basis" review.

Completely unacceptable.

The dilemma that those who argue for such a conclusion have to confront is to somehow justify using only a "rational basis" for a right explicitly listed in the text of the Bill of Rights, while at the same time demanding "strict scrutiny" for other rights that appear only as emanations or penumbra from some text, e.g., the 9th Amendment, and to do it in such a way that some shred of credibility for the Court is maintained.

When the anti-gun crowd argue that guns have always been heavily regulated in this country, almost every case they can point to is about the right to "bear" arms; for example, you can't march down the streets of Chicago with guns (Presser), you can't carry concealed, you can't carry a bowie knife (Aymette), etc. On the other hand, the right to "keep" arms, at least until 1934, was entirely unregulated for those not under some disabaility (convicts, minors, the insance). This is as one would expect in a legal system that respects the sanctity of a person's home.

Technically, Miller was a "bear" case as well.

Maybe strict scrutiny would be appropriate for the right to "keep" arms and a lesser level of scrutiny for the right to "bear" them. Heller is really only about the right to keep arms in your home and in what condition they can be kept. I think that is kind of what the court of appeals was trying to get at, but they didn't phrase it in those terms.

Well I'm no lawyer, but it occurs to me that the Constitution refers to the right "to keep AND bear arms," not the right "to keep OR bear arms." Under that language, can we really have the right to the one and not to the other?

"On the other hand, the right to "keep" arms, at least until 1934, was entirely unregulated for those not under some disabaility (convicts, minors, the insance)."

Or if you were black or Indian. I look forward to watching the District of Columbia argue, based on original intent, that they have a right to disarm the people of DC because most of them are black.

I just finished reading through the entire Respondent's Brief. I am not a lawyer, but a friend who teaches Constitutional law at a well respected Law school highlighted and made margin notes on it for me.

It is as thorough, as well articulated, and as well argued as it could possibly be in my view, and if supplemented with good supporting briefs, I can only conclude that if the SC finds for the petitioner, It will mean that not only the Constitution, but also our language and rules of logic have been abandoned or nullified.

Handguns are not only the "portion most often used in self-defense", they are the portion most USEFUL for self defense. Statistically they are used for self defense substantially more than the 40% would indicate. DC's ban is therefore most assuredly substantial infringement.