Knowledgable Fact Based 2A Legal Standing Advice Needed

[schoen]

I have an opportunity to provide non-NRA talking point background to a major activist group on a narrow topic and if anyone here can provide advise and council, I'd appreciate it.
The broad NRA talking points are not helpful. While I'm a Life Member of 30+ years, by necessity it has it's own hyperbole and I'm looking for something a legal clerk can work with.

"Describe or detail the legal bright line between a citizens right to bear arms and the Brady group type gun control crowd seeking to deny those rights. Need judicial opinions which can be referenced in order to describe honestly the lay of the land today."

I started, of course with Heller (2008) as it clarified many things but I'm by no means a legal eagle.

Thanks in advance.

[NRATC53]

Heller and McDonald spelled out the rights, the brady campaign et al believe we have no rights

[Ancap]

Most judicial opinions work against the constitution not for it. Since the founding of this nation and the thousands of laws passed by the federal government, the Supreme Court only found very few (less then 200) laws unconstitutional in its over 200 year span.

your better off, talking about natural law and that man has a natural right to life, liberty, and property, and a right to defend them. You will rarely find a mother who does not believe she has a duty to protect her children if they are being harmed.

discuss how natural law was the foundation for the Declaration of Independence and the constitution. You can also discuss how most laws are unjust since they violate the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. Without respecting those rights we become a less free society and is extremely harmful to our economy (since capitalism depends on Liberty)

you can discuss how natural law was the only way to prosecute the Nazi's, since their actions were justified under German laws.

a judge is not infallible, humans are prone to error and corruption. So judicial opinion is meaningless if it contradicts natural law

[Mad Russian]

There is no "legal bright line" that separates the two, if there had been there would not be a need for endless lawsuits.

The bright line that should exist is the line that government cannot constitutionally cross. Unfortunately that line is drawn in sand.

[Ancap]

The legal bright line is natural law, even though it's gets infringed upon more and more as time goes by......the constitution (although based on natural law) cannot be the legal bright line since it was designed to expand federal power from the previous articles of confederation. Hence the reason the bill of rights was added on to it

[Aquabach]

There is no "legal bright line" that separates the two, if there had been there would not be a need for endless lawsuits.

The bright line that should exist is the line that government cannot constitutionally cross. Unfortunately that line is drawn in sand.

Lesser men muddied the bright line the founder's wrote.
If you read the second amendment and the federalist papers it's ridiculous to believe there is any legality to the restrictions that these little men have forced upon us.
Unlike the founding father's, most have ulterior motives or at least feel the necessity to make their mark.
They aren't fit to lick the powder off the wigs of men like Adams, Jefferson and Washington.
In way too many instances The Constitution has been ignored by politicians and lawyers and judges unless it suits them.
It has been warped and twisted and used like a satanic cult uses bible verses.
The pox on all of them.

When a lawyer who is the President of the United States argues " it all depends on what your definition of " is" is" and he is not laughed at and ridiculed by other politicians and lawyers that just proves we have fallen straight down the sewer hole.

As to the OPs actual question, as someone with contempt for those that argue against our rights with more bull shit than a cattle ranch I'm of no use.

[Ancap]

this is the only law you need according to many of the founders that believed in John Locke's principles on natural law

[Barnslayer]

Curious how the 2nd Amendment is the only one the liberals think grants rights to the government.

[Mad Russian]

Maybe the problem is that America works too well: Little crime compared to the population. The economy works despite over-regulation and over taxation. Water flows from the faucets. Power flows from the electric outlets. Food is plentiful. The weather is good. So people become complacent and go about their business without thinking much about their immediate personal safety, or the future where they are not allowed to defend themselves, like the Brits have to deal with.

[spider]

Do you have a right to defend yourself, your family and your property?

Are the police in existence to protect you?

[Foosel]

What the question is really asking is describe the level of scrutiny the government requires to restrict an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Good luck writing your dissertation.

I would start with a general understanding of the three levels of scrutiny and then look for cases dealing with such.

[Foosel]

Start with Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sherrif's Department