Antonin Scalia's death calls Supreme Court gun rights stance into question

[jmg257]

36. Hey jimmmy! I don't think there is doubt about the 2nd securing an individual right...

"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) ; see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897) ; ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court)."

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting. [June 26, 2008]


Of course, its purpose, or primary purpose as Breyer notes, is the continuation of the Militias. Nothing about recognizing the security of an individual right seems to contradict that. It is the securing of an individual right for self-defense purposes that is argued.

Breyer basic opinions included for information sake:
"The majority’s conclusion [in Heller] is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern....
The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

I know you are all over this stuff, just curious about your take on "individual".