But there is no need for the court to choose, because even if the Second Amendment is regarded as creating an individual right to own firearms, it is surely not an absolute liberty. It seems obvious that the government can keep people from having particularly dangerous weapons, such as assault rifles, and keep those with criminal records from having guns. Just as free speech has never been regarded as absolute, nor should an individual right to bear arms be seen as precluding all government regulation.No one is arguing that the Second Amendment CREATES any right, Erwin, except for you lying left-wing revisionist subversives trying to derail it with weasel words and deception. In Madison's own words, he was "enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power." Your First Amendment analogy also falls flat because it does not invoke prior restraint. And the purpose of government is to protect rights and property, not control them.
This is what passes for a professor of law these days? Good grief. I wouldn't use your articles to line my birdcage--they might contaminate the guano.