2nd Am history: Until 1959, every law review article concluded it didn't guarantee an individ right

[sarisataka]

13. A interesting article with an irredeemable flaw

The premise they state

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

is never proven in the article.

The key statement is "In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise". They go on to remark there were cases the court could have ruled there is an individual right, without naming those cases, but the court didn't affirm an individual right at that time. However what they failed to mention is that the court ruled the right is limited to militia service in any of those cases. If such a statement was not included in the ruling then the question remained unanswered.

There are two points they are trying to use to support their position. The first is that law reviews prior to 1959 stated there is no individual right contained in the 2nd Amendment. As I have neither time nor inclination I will not dispute that statement. Law reviews however do not themselves make law, nor are they a final interpretation of the law. Also after the initial mention of the law reviews the author focuses of the SCOTUS so it is rather a moot point.

The second point they are using is the statement that previously SCOTUS had ruled the 2nd is not an individual right. This they failed to support with an appropriate citation. Prior to Heller SCOTUS had not directly ruled on the question for or against.