Interesting read on the origination of the whole "collective right" BS.

[PaulD]

Given Heller and McDonald, this is a bit of a moot point now, but I think it's an interesting political history lesson.

http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html

Everyone knows the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right. Instead, it establishes a collective right, which cannot be legally asserted by an individual. The only people who claim the Second Amendment protects an individual right are deluded “gun nuts” who are ignorant of the original intent of the Second Amendment, and of the Supreme Court’s past rulings.

If all you knew about the Second Amendment was what you learned from the national media, that’s what you would have believed during the latter decades of the 20th century.

 

[Quiet]

Good read, thanks.

 

[rivet_42]

Interesting. I always wondered where people had come up with that one. It sounded a lot like "I'm going to determine what conclusion I want and then come up with a legal theory to justify it."

 

[FPrice]

Good read, thanks for osting it.

But I would hesitate to call the collective right theory moot too soon because I am sure that anti-gun activists will continue to try to resurrect it if for no other reason than to muddy the waters.

 

[drgrant]

IMHO its dead. Even Liberals like Alan Dershowitz said it was. (a few lefty legal scholars even believed it was wrong. ) Ironically I think this myth being propagated so much added fuel to the fire to have the issue settled in Heller.

 

[center442]

Sadly, there are still gun-grabbers arguing the "collective right" angle. They're easy to identify. They're usually the same ones arguing that the RKBA only applies to muskets.

 

[PaulD]

Sadly, there are still gun-grabbers arguing the "collective right" angle. They're easy to identify. They're usually the same ones arguing that the RKBA only applies to muskets.

I've read lawyers' interpretations of Heller that said "common use" meant what was common in the 18th century.

 

[Tallen]

I've read lawyers' interpretations of Heller that said "common use" meant what was common in the 18th century.

Were their interpretations written with a quill on parchment in Ye Olde English dialect?

 

[JohnZ]

"It was a well-deserved demise of a theory that never should have gained traction, yet did so anyway because of dishonest judicial decisions"

This is the problem. There needs to be more quality control in the judicial system. Stuff that's crap needs to be expunged or marked as not being able to be used to support future cases. Judges who create the crap need to go.