Gun control can be effective...& USSC confirms individual right

[shield20]

The US Supreme Court has already confirmed the individual right to bear arms; unfortunately they withheld that right from a large portion of the population. In the Dred Scott decision, the U.S. Supreme Court showed that it felt that citizenship excluded blacks, through the relationship between citizenship and rights, and the carrying of arms:


"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

 

[ChestyP]

Dred Scott was included in the Parker decision. As was 1990's Verdugo-Urquidez case, which also affirmed, in dicta, the individual right protected by the 2A.

 

[Bubbles]

The USSC has also indicated that the Second Amendment protects individual rights in other cases not related to firearms rights. For example, in Planned Parenthood v Casey we find the language:

The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. See, e.g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147 -148 (1968). It is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, to suppose that liberty encompasses no more than those rights already guaranteed to the individual against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight amendments to the Constitution. See Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68 -92 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting). But of course this Court has never accepted that view.