quote:

P
ER
C
URIAM
.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex-
tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute
bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at
the time of the founding,”

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/03/constitution-check-where-does-the-second-amendment-stand-now/

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

P
ER
C
URIAM
.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex-
tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute
bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at
the time of the founding,”

This is from "heller"


From the court:

Alito also implied that state officials in Massachusetts may have left Caetano to her own devices. He wrote: “If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/03/constitution-check-where-does-the-second-amendment-stand-now/

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

P
ER
C
URIAM
.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex-
tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute
bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at
the time of the founding,”

This is from "heller"


From the court:

Alito also implied that state officials in Massachusetts may have left Caetano to her own devices. He wrote: “If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”

From that - how do you get the position that no second amendment right applies? Frankly, you persistently advocate meanings at variance with the plain meaning of the words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/03/constitution-check-where-does-the-second-amendment-stand-now/

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

P
ER
C
URIAM
.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex-
tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute
bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at
the time of the founding,”

This is from "heller"


From the court:

Alito also implied that state officials in Massachusetts may have left Caetano to her own devices. He wrote: “If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”

From that - how do you get the position that no second amendment right applies? Frankly, you persistently advocate meanings at variance with the plain meaning of the words.

me thinks that they forget that there are arms other than on a body or that are powderactuatedd. Just saying

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: KenDckey

It is a direct copy/paste from SCOTUS. Try again


From your link:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends,
prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment
right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)...

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts
court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered. ...

It is settled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that applies against both the Federal Government and the States. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010). That right vindicates the “basic right” of “individual self-defense.” Id., at 767; see Heller, supra, at 599, 628. Caetano’s encounter
with her violent ex-boyfriend illustrates the connection
between those fundamental rights: By armingherself, Caetano was able to protect against a physicalthreat that restraining orders had proved useless to prevent.
And, commendably, she did so by using a weapon that posed little, if any, danger of permanently harming either herself or the father of her children.

The scotus cites heller and mcdonald as the bassis for their decission to uphold her right to self defense.
Perhaps you might want to go back and read the cite you posted.