Well, you're not a lawyer and I'm not getting into any legal analysis myself here.
I'm going with the New York Times on this one.
They must be wrong, huh?
Maybe it would reach the Supreme Court, but my point is that the federal circuit courts are basically the last word on the individualist/collectivist interpretation of the second amendment as it stands. So if it doesn't reach the Supreme Court, then whatever the appeals court says about the amendment is the law for that jurisdiction. Shouldn't be any disagreement there.
Well, sure, we have a mechanism for changing the constitution.
But that amended constitution is still the supreme law of the land.
It's "binding law" for everyone.
I don't have an answer for that actually. Interesting point. Scenario is:
State passes law banning individuals from owning guns.
Courts uphold ban.
Congress passes federal law making guns available.
You keep saying NYT, NYT, ...
And basically, I respect the NYT, but I also am older now, so I don't treat all that the NYT says like some sort of religion. And since ALL district courts have not ruled uniformly on this issue, it is clear that the specifics of each case dictated the decision handed down. But if you have an accessible NYT link (I subscribe, but after a certain time limit (7 days I believe), you have to pay to access older stuff), I wouldn't mind reading it.
And I think, IMHO, there is a reason SCOTUS has NEVER ruled on the generalities of individual gun ownership. And I think it has to be due to the fact that no law has ever been passed dictating a TOTAL ban as I have described.
Something of that magnitude, would IMHO, have to go before the SCOTUS.
I also don't see any state passing such legislation either. Think about that one, it would be like Prohibition in the United States, and we all know how well that one worked. Heck, the minute such legislation had even a ghost of chance of passage, gun sales in the state of said legislation would skyrocket. Heck, gun ownership would probably DOUBLE!