A collective right view could logically include all variety of weapons currently within the federal arsenal, because the states would be empowered to arm themselves sufficiently to thwart those same federal forces. Pet. Br. 21. Given the fact that there is no Constitutional limitation upon the types of weapons that the federal government can possess, a collective states’ right position could logically require a similar freedom for the respective state militias. If the logic behind the Second Amendment is to preserve the right of states to maintain militias that constitute a counterweight to federal forces, as Petitioners contend, then states would logically be allowed to keep and bear even the most potent and destructive weapons of modern warfare.
Renee L. Giachino
February 11, 2008
Center for Individual Freedom
[Only four more days until oral arguments.
Wow! For some time now one of my biggest fears in this case was the concern the Court might have about the harmful consequences of deciding the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. It never occurred to me the consequences of a decision that it is “state right” (there is no such thing, states have powers not rights) might be an even bigger issue–it means the individual states are constitutionally justified if they want nukes. I love it, sort of a Cornelian dilemma for the fuzzy liberals.–Joe]