From that citation: [1]https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2008/7/25/556882/- "Curiously, during the McCarthy Era after World War II,. American Communist leaders, among others, were prosecuted and jailed under the infamous Smith Act for "teaching and advocating" the overthrow of the government by force and violence ā even though the government never introduced evidence that they had actually stored guns or other weapons. They were charged only with advocacy. " Eventually, in 1969, the decision Brandenburg v. Ohio was issued. [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio From that Wikipedia article: "Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark [3]United States Supreme Court case, interpreting the [4]First Amendment to the [5]U.S. Constitution.^[6][1] The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing [7]imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."^[8][2]^[9][3]^:702 Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere [10]advocacy of violence. In the process, [11]Whitney v. California (1927)^[12][4] was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on [13]Schenck v. United States (1919),^[14][5] [15]Abrams v. United States (1919),^[16][6] [17]Gitlow v. New York(1925)^[18][7], and [19]Dennis v. United States (1951).^[20][8] " ^ ^ On Friday, August 30, 2019, 02:33:11 PM PDT, Steven Schear wrote: [21]https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2008/7/25/556882/- On Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 1:38 PM jim bell <[22]jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: On Friday, August 30, 2019, 01:05:17 PM PDT, Steven Schear <[23]schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >And that is how the SC eventually decided adherence to the intent of the Founders regarding the 2nd Amendment, enabling the overthrow of the government should it become necessary, amounted to a "suicide pact" they would not endorse. So, the SC seems to have effectively abrogated the original intent w/o an Amendment. I've read both the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions, and except for a single line (the same, in both) they are very good. The problem is what is referred to as the "Heller dicta", a line that departing Justice John Paul Stevens induced Anthony Kennedy to add: [24]Long-standing and Presumptively Lawful? Hellerās Dicta vs. History and Dicta Long-standing and Presumptively Lawful? Hellerās Dicta vs. History and D... Introduction: Heller, McDonald, and Felons For more than two centuries after the Constitutionās ratification, ... Google 'heller dicta' Also: [25]https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf [26]Analysis: Did Heller say too much? - SCOTUSblog Analysis: Did Heller say too much? - SCOTUSblog Analysis As Justice Antonin Scalia was preparing the Supreme Court's opinion last year declaring a personal cons... [27]Why So Silent? The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment Debate Af... Why So Silent? The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment Debate Af... Long, Emma The unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016 led to much speculation about the impact of his ... "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of..." While Scalia was the named author of the majority Opinion, that does not mean that Scalia actually agreed with all parts of the opinion. There is a need for what is called "holding five", maintaining at least a 5-person majority. Presumably, Kennedy demanded the inclusion of this sentence in order to keep his fifth vote. "Dicta" means a statement within a legal opinion which is not necessary to the decision. "Dicta" is not considered to be binding on any court. [28]Dictum Dictum In United States legal terminology, a dictum is a statement of opinion considered authoritative (although not bi... The problem is that ever since the Heller decision was published, lower courts have been (I think obviously) engaging in the misconduct of applying this sentence as if it were indeed binding. When, eventually, the "conservative" wing of the SC gets another Justice, I think Heller will be revisited to entirely remove that "Heller dicta" statement. I think it's obvious that the Founding Fathers intended that the 2nd Amendment guarantee (not "grant") the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, and that this was represented by the then-current state of gun laws in the American states. At that point, 1791, the only people denied the RTKBA were those in jail or prison, and those people automatically regained that right once released. There is no basis for any greater restriction, today. Jim Bell References Visible links 1. https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2008/7/25/556882/- 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution 6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#cite_note-1 7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action 8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#cite_note-chapter-2 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#cite_note-CL-3 10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy 11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California 12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#cite_note-whitney-4 13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States 14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#cite_note-schenk-5 15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_v._United_States 16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#cite_note-6 17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York 18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#cite_note-7 19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States 20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#cite_note-Dennis-8 21. https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2008/7/25/556882/- 22. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com 23. mailto:schear.steve@gmail.com 24. https://www.heritage.org/courts/report/long-standing-and-presumptively-lawful-hellers-dicta-vs-history-and-dicta 25. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf 26. https://www.scotusblog.com/2009/07/analysis-did-heller-say-too-much/ 27. https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/11874 28. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum Hidden links: 30. https://www.heritage.org/courts/report/long-standing-and-presumptively-lawful-hellers-dicta-vs-history-and-dicta 31. https://www.scotusblog.com/2009/07/analysis-did-heller-say-too-much/ 32. https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/11874 33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum