On personal liberties

[EvilYeti]

But I only need one example to rebut the assertion that guns are useless as self-defense to an elderly person.

Except, as always, no one made that claim. It's the usual strawman B.S. from you.

If an action has a negative result 97% of the time and a postive result 3% of the time, do you really think it is fair to only consider the positive 3%? Especially when peoples lives are involved?

Cause thats what you are claiming.

 

[Suddenly]

Except, as always, no one made that claim. It's the usual strawman B.S. from you.

If an action has a negative result 97% of the time and a postive result 3% of the time, do you really think it is fair to only consider the positive 3%? Especially when peoples lives are involved?

Cause thats what you are claiming.

Yeah. This was the part he left out. He always leaves out the good parts, like "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

(Just kidding about that last part shanek - we've had enough discussions of 18th century etymology.)

 

[shanek]

Except, as always, no one made that claim. It's the usual strawman B.S. from you.

Oh, so then did you misspeak when you said:

Oh thats a great idea, that way when the criminal is done robbing the woman he will have two guns, instead of just one! You Libertarians are really a godsend to the American felon.

Because you didn't allow for any other possibility at the time.

If an action has a negative result 97% of the time and a postive result 3% of the time, do you really think it is fair to only consider the positive 3%? Especially when peoples lives are involved?

It's THEIR life. Let THEM make the evaluation. It's not like I'm advocating forcing people to carry guns.

 

[Suddenly]

It's THEIR life. Let THEM make the evaluation. It's not like I'm advocating forcing people to carry guns.

Except that not all the negative results are negative for the decision maker. If someone gets killed because they carry a gun I wouldn't worry about it. It's the possible innocent victims that are the problem.

What about the children?

 

[EvilYeti]

Because you didn't allow for any other possibility at the time.

I said "when he's done robbing her", so if a criminal sucesssfully robs an armed vicitim they will get a handgun out of the deal.

Since the criminal has the upper hand anyway, as he knows he is going to rob you, and you don't, most confrontations are going to end with him as the victorious party.

So not only does carrying a handgun increase the risk to yourself and others, it increases the chances of another weapon falling into the hands of a felon.

Just ask the NRA, most criminals steal their guns!

 

[Suddenly]

Just ask the NRA, most criminals steal their guns!

Often they buy them from burglars. People with drug habits tend to dislike confrontation, so the most active crime they will engage in is burglary (other faves seem to be forgery and ID theft). Guns are a favorite target because they are easy to fence. We have a dandy crack/guns trade between southern West Virginia and a few big cities, mostly Detroit. Stolen guns are plentiful in West Virginia, and expensive in Detroit, conversely crack is more expensive in West Virginia than Detroit. Thus, some enterprising individuals buy guns here, sell them in Detroit and buy crack, sell that here .....

Just a fun story, but I just wanted to point out that there is a whole economy in these things, and many burglars tend to look for houses with guns, as it is a lot easier to fence a gun than a TV set.

 

[a_unique_person]

In Australia, with strict gun laws, guns for criminals command a high price, even on the black market. This keeps them out of the hands of the most desperate criminals. The smarter, wealthier ones tend not to use them so much because they know if they just go around killing indiscriminately, they will get caught pretty quickly.

The biggest cause of gun deaths recently has been a criminal war. The only people dying have been criminals.

 

[shanek]

I said "when he's done robbing her", so if a criminal sucesssfully robs an armed vicitim they will get a handgun out of the deal.

You still didn't allow for any other possibility. The idea of defending yourself is to foil the robbery, not to do bad things to the robber after he's successful.

Just ask the NRA, most criminals steal their guns!

This isn't true. Most of them get them through straw purchases or through the black market. A comparatively small amount are stolen from legal gun owners.

 

[EvilYeti]

Yeah. This was the part he left out. He always leaves out the good parts, like "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

(Just kidding about that last part shanek - we've had enough discussions of 18th century etymology.)

How is that even debateable? The courts enforced by the constitution to interpret the constitution have ruled 100% of the time the second amendment isn't an individual right. It allows states to form well regulated militias, i.e. a police force.

If the courts are wrong then the constitution is wrong and the second amendment gets flushed along with it.

Has anyone ever pointed this out to the Libertarians?

 

[shanek]

How is that even debateable? The courts enforced by the constitution to interpret the constitution have ruled 100% of the time the second amendment isn't an individual right.

That is completely, utterly, and pathetically untrue. Presser v. Illinois, U.S. v. Miller, Lewis v. U.S., and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez are all cases where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment referred to individual rights.

Has anyone ever pointed this out to the Libertarians?

Yes, and the Libertarians have pointed out that they are WRONG.

 

[EvilYeti]

That is completely, utterly, and pathetically untrue. Presser v. Illinois, U.S. v. Miller, Lewis v. U.S., and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez are all cases where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment referred to individual rights.

Thats funny, U.S. vs Miller ruled:

In this oft-cited case, the court ruled that The National Firearms Act was constitutional and that the Second Amendment must be interpreted with a view to its purpose of rendering the Militia effective. The court defined the militia as being "comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." The type of weapon called into question was also examined.

and Lewis v. U.S. wasn't about the second amendment

Though this case was not directly related to the Second Amendment, the court restated the Miller court's focus on the type of firearm under consideration.

Nor was U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, which was about the fourth. Whether the "people" referred to in the second amendment referred to state militias or the public at large was not addressed.

With leaves us with Presser v. Illinois way back in 1879 and lets see what thats all about..... oops the supreme court rejected his second amendment claim.

I can see the LP shares your passion for error.

 

[Cleopatra]

It's THEIR life. Let THEM make the evaluation. It's not like I'm advocating forcing people to carry guns.

True but what if their child kill mine while playing together?

 

[gnome]

How is that even debateable? The courts enforced by the constitution to interpret the constitution have ruled 100% of the time the second amendment isn't an individual right. It allows states to form well regulated militias, i.e. a police force.

If the courts are wrong then the constitution is wrong and the second amendment gets flushed along with it.

Has anyone ever pointed this out to the Libertarians?

To be honest, I've always thought of this as a weak debating point. Though I'm in favor of reasonable gun controls, I don't know if I agree with SC precedents that state gun ownership is not an individual right.

But it isn't really necessary for the kind of arguments that I like to make.

 

[Suddenly]

That is completely, utterly, and pathetically untrue. Presser v. Illinois, U.S. v. Miller, Lewis v. U.S., and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez are all cases where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment referred to individual rights.



Yes, and the Libertarians have pointed out that they are WRONG.

Presser v. Illinois: This case held that state governments are not bound by the second amendment by operation of the 14th amendment: (this reasoning was eventually discarded by the Supreme Court)

[T]he Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government ...

I can find no discussion of the nature of 2nd amendment rights in this case, and the context seems to indicate that they are not taking the individual rignts stance you suggest:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think (p.266)it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

Not that any of this really matters because the Supreme Court in U.S. v, Miller says:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The second amendment according to this enforces a personal right only if it can be shown that it has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." This would mean weaponry owned for the purpose of hunting or defense of self isn't covered.

Furthermore, there is now a split between the circuits whether that right is personal or a matter of collective right, that is does one have a 2nd amendment right to own a weapon with "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" even though that person is not an active member of such a militia. (Compare U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir., 1996) with U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir, 2001))

There seem to be several "Lewis v. U.S." cases. You may want to at least include a date.


As far as U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez goes, that was a fourth amendment right case dealing with illegal immigrants. In deciding whether the fourth and fifth amendments applied to illegal immigrants, the court said:

While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law").

So, in a case not about the second amendment to begin with, that court makes an offhand comment about the second amendment while deciding whether "people" includes those who are not citizens, and you want to use that to mean that the Supreme Court has overruled itself?

If that is true, can you explain how the Supreme Court isn't overstepping it's jurisdiction and powers granted by the constitution? Ever hear of Article III section 2? The first part extends the judicial power to particular cases and controversies. In other words, if these is no dispute before the court on a particular issue, the court has no right to speak to that issue?

Saying that the Supreme Court legitimately made new second amendment precedent in a case where no second amendment issue was raised implies the court can speak to any issue at any time. Do you really agree with that?

Of course, even that assumes that the above is a clear statement, which it isn't. The right on some level is personal, the question is the extent of the right. A right to bear arms only in the direct service of a militia is still a personal right, just not a very broad one.

Which leads to the point that even if the second amendment contained a broad personal right, that right is subject to reasonable regulation just like any other right mentioned in the bill of rights (Can't scream "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.)

 

[Grammatron]

Which leads to the point that even if the second amendment contained a broad personal right, that right is subject to reasonable regulation just like any other right mentioned in the bill of rights (Can't scream "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.)

Yes but your definition of reasonable does not seem to be the same as mine. Few will argue the importance of screaming fire in a crowded theatre (if there is no fire), but there is a heated debate on what guns people are allowed to own and where could they carry them. Also, here's something Kodiak posted a while back.

Amendment II --

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Militia was just the reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the militia."

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."

and

"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."
"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.

 

[shanek]

With leaves us with Presser v. Illinois way back in 1879 and lets see what thats all about.

Yes, let's:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view [the Second Amendment] prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.

That was statewd in dicta, which is a side opinion made so that people like you don't misconstrue what the main opinion was talking about.

 

[shanek]

True but what if their child kill mine while playing together?

Why are you letting your child play with a gun?

 

[Grammatron]

True but what if their child kill mine while playing together?

I take it you also don't keep knifes in your house.

 

[Suddenly]

Yes but your definition of reasonable does not seem to be the same as mine. Few will argue the importance of screaming fire in a crowded theatre (if there is no fire), but there is a heated debate on what guns people are allowed to own and where could they carry them. Also, here's something Kodiak posted a while back.

I'd think the definition of reasonable is pretty much set in case law w/r/t regulation of constitutional right. Lots of first amendment cases to draw paralells to.


I'm going to note here as well that I think the root of the problem is one of terminology. I cover this at the end of my post. I'm adding this as a note that I think the problem may lie in what the words "collective" and "individual" mean in a particular context. They have straight "dictionary" meanings, but in the context of second amendment jurisprudence they have other meanings in certain circumstances. It may help to read the last part of this post first.

Amendment II --

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Militia was just the reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the militia."

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."

and

"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

Everybody has an opinion. Same with Volokh. I've been an editor on a law review and taught classes in law. So what? His statements have no more binding authority in law than mine, or Franko's for that matter.

Plus, his last sentence makes little sense. What justification clause in the 1st amendment? Furthermore, who is completely denying gun rights? Restricting the right to "Militia" related activities is hardly an outright denial that a right exists, its just a restriction, be it a rather large one. His next to last sentence makes little sense as well. That types of clauses may exist in law does not somehow require that all of them are going to be construed with identical weight w/r/t the rest of a sentence. That's silly.

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

I'm pretty confident that such a mention is dicta in the first two cases. Offhand comments not directly related to the issue to be decided have no force in law, as they are not made within the court's grant of power under the constitution. The third I'll just suspect absent knowledge of context.

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller

As pointed out above, this right is restricted by a "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"" test spelled out by Miller. Again, you are arguing with the strawman that these cases ban all personal rights to own a gun. They don't. The argument is that personal right only exists where some relationship to militia activity exists. Miller stands for the proposition that the weapon itself must be of a type commonly used for militia type purposes. The question remaining today is whether or not ownership of a gun that passes the "Miller test" is protected by the second amendment even if the person owning it does not do so in relation to actual militia activity. The circuits are split on this....

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

This is one half of the split I mentioned above. Read the whole case and you will see that the above text fits in with what I am saying. In Emerson, the court limited Miller to only speak to types of weapons. It doesn't contradict Miller, or overrule it. The principle that a weapon must in type have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is not disturbed. The Emerson court refuses to take the next step and find that Miller implies that for the second amendment to apply a person must be engaged in some sort of militia activity. Then if you read the other half of the split, the Rybar case I mention in an above post, that court does take the next step and refuses to find second amendment protection because while the guns (they were machine guns) passed the "Miller" test, the owner had no relationship whatsoever to a militia.

This is the split. Emerson goes with a relatively "individual right" in that participation in militia is not necessary. Rybar takes the opposite view, embracing the so called "collective" right.

Both views still follow Miller, in that only guns of the type commonly used for militia purposes are protected by the second amendment.

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

Are you serious? If 88% of people believe 2+2=73 that doesn't make it so. Plus, I'd love to see the actual question. Thanks to certain groups uses of ellipses, I wonder how many people know the actual text of the second amendment?

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."
"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

This would be great if the federal courts were bound by state courts, or if law was a question of statistics rather than binding authority. It isn't. It is just a footnote in a case that is part of a circuit split.

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

Authorship doesn't automatically confer authority. Furthermore, like a said before, this statement is not really contradictory to the "collective" right theory. The "collective" right as stated in Rybar does confer a right on the individual, it just conditions that right on membership in a militia. The right is not held collectively but individually. However, that individual right is conditioned by membership is a "collective" group, In that "I" have a right to own a gun, as long as it is in the context of militia membership."

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

Maybe in your opinion. I have serious doubts that the "debates" you mention have ever settled down. Furthermore, the 14th amendment and decisions about the commerce clause have dramatically changed the nature of federal power over domestic concerns. These insights seem simply out of date.

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.

Yes. The whole so called "collective" versus "individual" rights argument is simply an argument over whether or not the test in Miller extends beyond the type of gun to require that the ownership interest be realted to militia purposes. That is it. That's all the argument is.

Either way, you definately have an individual right under the second amendment to own a gun that is of a type suitable for militia purposes, if the ownership interest relates to militia activity. (The so-called "collective rights view")

Some circuits hold that only the type of weapon is important, the owner need not actually be involved in the militia. (individual rights view)

Legally, that is the question. Confusion results when people use the words "collective" and "individual" both as terms of art as explained above and with their common meanings.

"Collective" in the above context includes a (restriced) individual right, and the "individual" right still is affected by a collective flavor, in that the right is justified by a showing the weapon is of a type used for the collective defense.

What a mess.

 

[Suddenly]

Yes, let's:



That was statewd in dicta, which is a side opinion made so that people like you don't misconstrue what the main opinion was talking about.

Huh?

There is no such term as "in dicta."

"Dicta" is a term. Also called "obiter dictum." It is part of the opinion by a judge that goes beyond the facts and is not binding.

The Presser case did not deal with the question of "individual" versus "collective" rights, either in their dictionary meaning or in the meaning of these terms in modern 2nd amendment jurisprudence. The case turned on the question of whether the 2nd amendment applied to the states. They found it didn't, but later cases found that it did. Either way, the issue of the nature of 2nd amendment rights was not at issue, so any statement to that fact would be dicta and not binding.