From the above mentioned article...
Even though I agree with the original posters point and celebrate it as some good news, there is a chilling undertone to the 7th Circuits 2012 reference to Heller, which I believe is fundamentally flawed.
The Second Amendment does NOT confer a right to citizens, in contrast, it recognizes a natural-born right of citizens and restricts the government from infringing upon it. If the Bill of Rights merely lists rights conferred by government, they can be taken away by government. That is not what was intended by the founders, and no Originalist studied in history would reach that conclusion. We need to be informed and vocal on calling out this distinction. It is vital.
Quote:Heller , however, expressly rejects the argument that the Second Amendment protects a purely civic right. Moore v. Madigan , 702 F.3d 933, 935 (7th Cir. 2012). It squarely holds that the Second Amendment confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms, Heller , 554 U.S. at 595, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (emphasis added), and it emphasizes that the Second Amendment is rooted in the individuals right to defend himselfnot in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia, id. at 58286, 128 S.Ct. 2783.
Even though I agree with the original posters point and celebrate it as some good news, there is a chilling undertone to the 7th Circuits 2012 reference to Heller, which I believe is fundamentally flawed.
The Second Amendment does NOT confer a right to citizens, in contrast, it recognizes a natural-born right of citizens and restricts the government from infringing upon it. If the Bill of Rights merely lists rights conferred by government, they can be taken away by government. That is not what was intended by the founders, and no Originalist studied in history would reach that conclusion. We need to be informed and vocal on calling out this distinction. It is vital.

