Please provide the exact language from Heller that supports your statement. It was still 9-0 as an individual right...<quoted text>
Nope, it was 5-4, even on the individual right, because the 4 dissenters linked that to state militia service only.
I will ignore your attempt to provoke. So again, please provide the exact language from Heller (I am especially interested in the part about slaughtering school kids).<quoted text>
So you have an individual right to own a gun ONLY as part of your duties to serve in a state militia; not for hunting or self defense or target practice or slaughtering school kids.
Partially correct - the majority also stated that it was not unlimited. The dissent was really taking exception to overturning the law in DC.<quoted text>
Breyer's dissent was to demonstrate that even IF there was an individual right, it's not unlimited.
Not relevant. The 9-0 individual right determination and the point of this discussion has nothing to do with the extent of the limitation on keeping and bearing arms. Those things you identified above are already in place. If they are specifically overturned in the future it will be by something other than 9-0 (just like the law in DC).<quoted text>
If you're right, then you have nothing to worry about because any and ever restriction on guns & ammo including background checks or bans on felons owning guns or taking your gun to prison with you will be overturned by the courts based on that precedent.
After all, it can't be infringed......
Try it this way 9-0 individual right. 5-4 on the extent the right can be limited. The argument now and future court cases will center on to what extent the right can be infringed. It will be interesting...