Intrepid wrote:1. Does the historical evidence support the conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms?
Yes.
Intrepid wrote:2. If the Second Amendment does create an individual right, how broad is the right? Does it include the right to possess arms that would be useful to a militia today--hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc.? Or does it create only a right to possess arms that would have been used by a militia in 1791--muskets? Or is the right answer somewhere between these extremes?
A noted before, it doesn't create the right. It protects a right that already existed.
The right covers modern militia weapons. But some militias get by on automatic rifles with AP ammo, so the right could be limited to exclude things like grenades and rocket launchers.
Intrepid wrote:3. The Second Amendment speaks of the right to bear arms. Does this suggest, for example, that there is no right to possess weapons that could not be carried, such as cannons?
Maybe, but probably not.
A more likely limitation would be whether the weapon was managed by a single person, or whether it was a crew-served weapon.
I base that on the early militia law, which had militiamen who were cavalry care for their own horse and equipment (can't carry a horse, but it is operated by an individual). But they did not require the same of artillerymen, and cannon were crew-served.
Intrepid wrote:4. If the underlying concern that inspired the Second Amendment--fear of an abusive federal government oppressing states and their citizens--no longer exists, should that affect how we interpret the Amendment?
Can't legitimately change your interpretation unless the amendment is amended.
Or unless you have a realistic argument how your new interpretation is more in line with original intent than the old interpretation.
Intrepid wrote:5. What is the argument for choosing what provisions of the Bill of Rights we will give full effect?
None whatsoever, so far as I know. They ALL need to be given full effect.
Intrepid wrote:6. If the test for whether a provision of the Bill of Rights is incorporated into the 14th Amendment is whether the right in question is "fundamental to the American scheme of justice" what conclusion should we come to with respect to the right to keep and bear arms?
Don't know. So far as I'm concerned, the fourteenth amendment incorporated all individual rights, and I consider any court ruling to the contrary to be anti-Constitution.
Intrepid wrote:7. Which of the following regulations of firearms is constitutional?: (1) an age restriction, (2) a four-day waiting period for purchase of a firearm, (3) a ban on the carrying of concealed weapons.
Age restriction might be OK, unless it was unreasonable.
The problem with waiting periods is that they are only designed to make it a hassle to exercise your right to buy a gun. I'd say that makes them unconstitutional.
In addition, the anti-gun people plan to gradually lengthen the waiting period until it is at least a month, if not a year.
A ban on concealment is OK so long as people can carry their gun in the open without being hassled.
