Gun Control Reform Activism

Your post hansberry, reeks with rightwing propaganda, & is prejudiced off the truth so much you should be ashamed for posting this junk science. And trying to frame your post as some kind of intellectual insight is appalling to anyone with an above average understanding of the issue.

hansberrym: ... Saul {Cornell} and others argued for an individual rights interpretation, and in Heller SCOTUS found 9-0 on that point, overturning Silveira with regard to standing and on collective vs. individual right.

There are 3 possible rkba interpretations: pure individual, militia with narrow individual, & pure militia, but only the pure individual rkba comports with gunnuts. Haysberry above tries to mislead readers that a 9-0 unanimous decision was rendered by the supreme court in 2008 heller for an 'individual' rkba interpretation.
In a dissent {re heller}, by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves..

hansberry: US v. Miller taught that the RKBA was intended to protect possession of arms useful in warfare.. and thus sawed off shotguns, saturday night specials, and other weapons useful primarily to the criminal do not under that interpretation fall under the definition of "arms" in 2A.

A sawed off shotgun would be of immense use to soldiers in an army, & were temporarily banned in wwI since they cut men in half in trenches, it was the inhumane death;.
This is a ridiculous comment haysberry makes, conflating military weapons with service in a militia. The miller decision, unanimous 8-0 decision, wrote thusly (1 & 2):
1) "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
2) "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed off shotgun] 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.."

So hansberry preaches out the song & dance concoction the nra developed over the past 30 years to sidestep the miller decision, which clearly spoke for a militia interpretation.
Prudent people might wonder why, if this gun lobby song & dance were so, at least one of the 1939 Supreme Court Justices wouldn't have objected to the above wordings, 'hold on fellow justices, look at the way we've worded our ruling & opinions, future generations are going to think we ruled for a militia rights interpretation.' Yet not one single 1939 Justice objected - they were satisfied that what they wrote was fit & proper, and expressed their opinion of what the Second Amendment entailed, a right incumbent upon a well regulated militia.

haysberry: It is one thing to question the finer points of Heller which was decided 5-4; it is quite another to ignore US v. Miller,..

Yet you ignore the rulings of UNANIMOUS miller & twist it into some aberration.

haysberry: It is one thing to question the finer points of Heller which was decided 5-4; it is quite another to ignore US v. Miller, Aymette v. Tenn.

A ruling from 1840 on a man carrying a bowie knife, when courts were confused & splitting into schisms on interpreting the 2ndA, and which really deserves an entry in a book on early contradictory rulings, as well as being ambiguous in it's own right, oft reflecting militia views of the time.

haysberry: .. and a long string of state court cases which held that arms useful for military purposes are those arms which fall under the protection of 2A.

A long string of early court cases held for the militia interpretation too, & prohibitions on firearms.
.. and like what you cited: Silveira, again 9th Circuit.. held that the while RKBA is right of the people, it is a "Collective" right, and so individuals have no standing.

4th circuit- april love/pepersack, 1995: Johnson's argument that is an unconstitutional violation of his {2ndA} right to keep and bear arms is not new. See, e.g., US v. Miller(1939). The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Johnson presents no evidence {that} .. in any way affects the maintenance of a well regulated militia. Love has likewise not identified how her possession of a handgun will preserve or insure the effectiveness of the militia.

miller again: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed off shotgun] 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