Did Democrats Give Up in Gun Control Debate?

[petronius]

63. Doesn't that quote you chose from Stevens actually *agree* that it's an individual right,

and that the actual question is how tightly that right can be restricted without becoming infringement?

Stevens: "Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right." (From your post)

And Breyer also says "...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...." (From your link)

So while I understand your narrow interpretation of the 2nd, the question of an individual right seems pretty settled, and it's far from mythology.


But as you recall, my initial question to you was why do you keep citing the 9th when it can only play a role opposite of what you seem to think - we've wandered away from that topic. You can say that this "right to public safety" is out there in the unenumurated universe, but you haven't explained where it comes from (from Scalia?) and how you arrive at it without stretching the 9th to include a bunch of other things you don't want (like that individual right the whole SC agreed existed).

In truth, this nebulous right you talk about doesn't exist - it may be a reasonable expectation of citizens that their government pass reasonable, smart, effective laws, but it's not an unenumerated Constitutional right (under the 9th) to have that happen...