The question was asked in an earlier post, “why would he do that?”, and I posit that a certain portion of society will interpret his writings as proof that “they” know the 2A means we armed citizens have a constitutional right to keep our arms but they simply disagree with it, and therefore will look you straight in the eye and lie to you. They are expecting you to lie down and die in front of deadly criminals because it somehow for the greater, philosophical good. I would ask Mr. Tribe to explain to me, how does the rape or murder of innocent people feed a greater purpose? What part of “the people” don’t you understand, and how can “the people” mean the individual in other amendments, but not in the 2nd? How many people have to suffer rape and death before we stop worrying more about criminal rights than victims?

I knew it! We’ve found Abner Mikva’s long-lost son!!!!

A ruling that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right would have no effect upon the legality of what a citizen may choose to do with her weapon. And as much as I admire Tribe’s intellectual honesty, it bothers me to see the same old liberal trope of trying to conflate gun ownership with a bloodbath. They were wrong about Florida, Texas, and every other state that instituted “shall issue” permits instead of “may issue” permits. Gun crime goes down when law abiding citizens are armed, & up when they are disarmed.

Well, here we are, about to rewrite the effect of the individual right. Yes, it will have an effect on stupid and illogical laws “abridging” my right to “keep and bear” arms. Oh, well.

I look forward to bringing challenges to restrictive and soon to be unconstitutional laws the liberal and feel-good California legislature have passed in previous sessions.

Hooray for the Supreme Court.

I wonder why I was allowed to carry arms during my military service or control nuclear weapons, yet my possession of arms of my choosing is such a disaster in civilian life? I’m left wondering why police are not a standing army?

I’m surprised I’m allowed to exist in society after being tainted by war?

I am simply amazed that the response to criminal activity is to deny law-abiding citizens their rights for the acts of criminals?

I left wondering what the real motivation must be.

I wonder if the good professor in understands the meaning of the words “shall not be infringed”?

I wonder if the words of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, “.. and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” has any meaning any more.

Neither the government at any level, nor police will accept legal responsibility of my safety, while securing it for themselves, yet they are all ready to deny me the right to protect myself and my family in the manner of my choosing?

What arrogance!

It wil be amusing to hear the Justices ask Dellinger ‘How is it that you come before us to argue an ‘implied right of self defense’ in a law that says no such thing, and offer that as justification for the law ? Is it your position that the law as written is OK because you assume that judges will ignore it when they take the mood ?’

“Using a case about national legislative power over gun-toting in the capital city as a vehicle for deciding how far Congress or the state of California can go in regulating guns in Los Angeles would be a silly stretch.”

Does he feel the same way about the 1st, 4th, etc ? That argument is at the heart of the DC side, that ‘Even if the 2nd means an individual right, states are free to ignore it’.

Alan Gura is going to have a VGD ( Very Good Day )today !!! Winning his first SC case !

Guess it was ok in theory, but his “political instincts” are now back fully in control. I doubt he would suggest the 4A could be so easily disposed of.

But even worse, he appears not have even read the District court decision or the briefs now filed before the SC. Among his several glaringly misinformed statements is “absolute right to possess the weapons of one’s choice.”, because nowhere in Hellers’ arguments does he ask for any such thing. He asks only that the right to have “functional firearms” including “hanguns” in his home for self-defense. NOTHING in Heller suggests that the 2A is an “absolute right”.

But CLEARLY, handguns are one the weapons, that the militia, would be expected to bear, when called for service, as they “arms” that would be useful to the militia, and they are in “common use”.

It seems that even L Tribe cannot bring himself to admit, against his ideological desires, that words actually mean something. How sad that America’s pre-eminent legal scholar should be willing to advocate a position that would gut 1/10 of the BofR’s while claiming that he agrees the 2A protects that very right. How sad, that even we neanderthal gun-owners have more respect for the Constitution than he.

“Such a holding would confuse the right to bear arms with a right to own and brandish the firearms of one’s choosing.”
Yes, precisely so, and the problem with being able to choose your weapons is? (as long as the chosen weapon is not one that has been deemed not protected by the 2nd amendment)

“Worse than that, it would transform a constitutional provision clearly intended and designed to protect the people of the several states from an all-powerful national government into a restriction on the national government’s uniquely powerful role as governor of the nation’s capital”

Precisely so, indeed the intent of the amendment is not only to protect the people of the individual states but ALSO people in general (such as those living in Washington DC) from an all-powerful national government.

So I think Prof. Tribe has failed to connect the dots between a possible consequence and its desirability. I do however completely agree that the decision should be narrow (is it an individual, fundamental right?) and not even go into its applicability to the states via the 14th amendment, or via the necessity of state residents to own arms in order to form the US militia when called (I believe this was stated by Cruishank?), or by some other method.