BF

This is one that would be interesting to be at and watch the arguments.

I feel quite sure that a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms. The right of the ordinary people to keep and bear arms is strongly linked solely to the need for a regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state.

There is no mention of the right to have guns for other purposes.

I see nothing that gives the people the unfettered right to own firearms, whether it be for recreational hunting, or for self-defence.

Such arming is for the national defense only.

I think the Second Amendment ought to be upheld.

I see a few chinks that the lawyers will pick at: The states don't have their own militia, regulated or otherwise. DC isn't a state.

But, I don't see any ambiguity in "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

TonyA

That is where is disagree with you.

The 2nd is broken into two categories.

Malitia and ownership. Personally, I don't see the "tie in". The right to bear arms is explicit.

I hope the Supreme court decides this 2nd ia talking to 2 issues.

As it stands, there (IMO) is not a contingent separation of the ownership issue, being tied to Malitia.

Yah ..I am watching it pretty close too and would really like to hear it in person as well.

Clare,,granted, me too in it's current state of execution. That being, ownership is a "right".