Collective right per se dead

I'd argue that Justice Steven's dissent was largely the collective right's view, just with some window dressing of claiming it was an individual right.

I agree with James in general.

It is amazing that the "collective rights" theory could enjoy the support of so many for so long when you think about it. Would a Federalist Congress pass an amendment guaranteeing power to the states over arming the militia immediately after the Federalists took the same militia power away from the states in the Constitution? No, but they would pass a Bill of Rights provision protecting private rights.

Yeah, according to Stevens you apparently have some kind of an individual right to join an Organized State Militia other than the National Guard (which Organized State Militia conveniently doesn't exist in any state), and if the Organized State Militia orders you to provide your own weapon at your own expense (provided that it is a weapon that the Federal Government will allow you to own), you can go out and buy one.

A quick read of the initial Federal legislation on the militia (Militia Act of 1792) shows that all able-bodied men ages 17-45 were required to have a military grade rifle, ammo, etc. Other weapons and equipment were required depending on your assignment. Think Switzerland or Israel for a modern case which is somewhat similar.

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Seems to place AW bans, at least those of M-16 pattern, off limits.

What do you think about the aspects of how the language of "Sporting Purpose" in how it has been used by the BATFE since GCA '68?

It seems to me now that there is room to challenge that aspect of importation bans imposed by the point system.

It seems that banning imports based on a "sporting purpose" definition no longer is valid if the weapon can be used by the people for for common self defense purposes.

Considering that state laws, for example the CA Assault Weapon Ban, have been upheld in court on the basis that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, do you think that these laws will be easily challenged now?

The California legislature ended the authority of the Attorney General to add guns to the assault weapon list. Thus you can buy the gun you want now if you can find a version of it whose exact model number doesn't already appear on the banned list.

Well Critic, as a resident of the PRK, I'm not exactly sure that you are correct. I sure don't see them in gun stores, and God knows, I see enough of them. You got a more specific reference to your assertion there?

I think we need to get past incorporation first. Don't assume thats a done deal...

Critic is generally correct. Kasler v. Lockyer created the definitive List of firearms BANNED from import into the state. There are also weapons BANNED by a combination of features. If a make/model is off-list and does not meet the threshold combination of features, you CAN purchase it in a store.

For example: If an off-list AR-style rifle has a fixed magazine (or one that can only be removed using a 'tool' as defined in CA statute), it can be a semi-auto with a pistol grip and be OK to purchase. If you add a bayonet lug or a flash suppressor, it meets the threshold to be BANNED.

Is a ban legal now in light of Heller? Probably not, but the CA DOJ isn't likely to roll over and obey the Supreme Court without one last pissing contest. Because the CA Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that California citizens do not have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, that will require incorporation of the USC 2A through the USC 14th A.

Wish us luck! Send lawyers, guns and money!

Jim, If I had your definition of correct I'd have done better in school than I did - which wasn't awful. Considering the consequences of getting it wrong - i.e. jail, the features test tends to overpower not being on the list. Given that following critic's (admittedly worth what I paid for it) advice would get me arrested, I think I'll consider him incorrect since incomplete.

RKV, the sadist thing is that enforcement of the the AW Ban of off-list purchases is left to the Governor and more specifically, the Attorney General. Before Jerry Brown, it was rumored that the AG would declare all AR/AK/Assault weapons not on the list, suddenly on the list by fiat and enforce the law full steam ahead, lawsuits be damned.

AG Brown seems to have bigger fish to fry than pursue firearms purchases for political correctness when they don't make a wit's difference in the crime rate.

But that's now, and things change. I agree that the THREAT of legal action is chilling enough to discourage purchases by law-abiding citizens. It would be nice to win that lawsuit, but not so nice to be the defendant...

Jim, As the owner of 2 registered rifles, I really, really, really want to see the day, when I and every other registered owner in the PRK will sue for and win my registration fees back with interest, and dare I hope, damages. Meanwhile, I'm gonna send some $$ to Gura and co. Incorporation cannot come fast enough for me. In my weaker moments, the idea of an Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter I § 1983 civil action for deprivation of rights suit appears tantalizingly close in my dreams.

I came to the same conclusion about the collective theory, but I only had to read as far as the first two sentences of the dissent...
"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a 'collective right' or an 'individual right.' Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals."

The problem is that they don’t define their version of the right as it applies to individuals. And what in the world is a right to use a gun for military purpose?? Is that a right to be drafted? A right to use arms as defined by law? Where’s the Right in that? It’s an incomprehensible construction.

So 2A is an individual right after all. I look forward to the ACLU vigorously defending that right along with all the rest.

Gun control advocates used the term "collective" in conjunction with "rights" in order to tie government control to rights in their control leaning minds. Some controllers just loved Martin Luther quotes, something I predicted to myself long ago that would happen in the future - before it actually did. One of Martin's favorite phrases was a reference to the rights of the states and their citizens. To controllers, this proved that state governments were referred to as having rights and the Second Amendment was intended to protect a state government's right against the militia power of the federal government. The actual history of the Second Amendment, which is still largley unknown to most people, directly contradicts such an argument.

There are most assuredly collective rights, but they have nothing to do with government control. Take for example religious beliefs, which are beliefs of individuals, and the results of their collective exercise via organized religions. Clearly, this is an example of a true collective right - the exercise by associated and cooperating individuals of rights that each one of them possesses and expresses in cooperation with other individuals. No government control involved here. This is an actual collective right and is what I think the term collective right should be properly applied to. Basically, controllers hijacked the word right by using collective in conjunction with it and defining collective as government controlled.

The gun control advocates application of the term collective to right was just as twisted as their understanding of well regulated militia or any other aspect of the Second Amendment. A lot of the disagreements, even in the Heller decision and dissents, are largely based on definitions of terms and which historical definition one accepts as accurate.

The Heller decision and dissents are largley text based and reliant on historical examples of usage rather than being based on the history of the Second Amendment per se. The history is very clear and largely ignored in the Heller decision.

There are many American historical facts that would have clarified the majority opinion and brought a quick end to all dispute, IMHO, if they had been used by Scalia. He was obviously faced with the typical visceral ideological divide over the most contentious of issues and could not get the dissenting justices to question their accepted views or even look at extensive historical evidence directly contradicting them. Justice Scalia has far from exhausted the historical information that backs up the main point of the majority decision and has, perhaps intentionally, left a large amount of supporting historical information available as backup for future cases.

This is a digression, but aren't religious groups exercising their collective right of free association while exercising their individual right of freedom of religion?