Chicago Still Argues the 2nd Amendmentment is "Collective"

-----Chicago finally submitted its brief in the lawsuits against it (there were two suits, one brought by the NRA and one by the ISRA, SAF, and four residents of Chicago. The two suits were consolidated, so Chicago's brief addresses both. This is for the federal appellate court; it's likely that whoever loses here will appeal to the Supreme Court.) I'm still slogging through it (hey, I don't get paid for this) but I'm struck by Chicago's decision to open their arguments, more or less, with the assertion that the 2nd Amendment protects a collective right and certainly wasn't intended to enumerate an individual, "deeply rooted" right to keep and bear arms.

"And in fact, the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights says nothing about whether the right it protects--interpreted in Heller as a right to own weapons in common use--is a fundamental personal liberty interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Unlike other enumerated rights, the Second Amendment was not codified to protect individual liberty. Rather, although conferring an individually held right, the scope of the Second Amendment's protection is circumscribed by its primary purpose of preventing federal disarmament of the militia."

-----Really, Chicago? Really? That's what you came up with? The Second Amendment "confers" an individual right, but since the individual right it "confers" is connected to a collective purpose, it's really a double secret collective right, and Heller is double plus undone and down the memory hole? I can't wait to read the rest.