I believe your argument is incorrect. If you will read the actual opinion you will see that Heller clearly says handguns are only a subset of the “arms” the amendment protects. Heller’s focus on handguns in the ruling was not in any way an express or even implicit attempt to limit the RKBA to handguns. SCOTUS is bound by a constitutional limit on its power called the “case or controversy” rule. It requires SCOTUS to decide only the specific issue raised on appeal, and then only in the narrowest way possible. The issue here were the specific laws that amounted to a total ban on possession of a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense. Here is the issue the Court had to decide: We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628 (200 Here, in a nutshell, is the Court’s ruling on this narrow issue: As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for [Page 629] protection of one's home and family,” 478 F.3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster. District Of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628-629 (200 Even here, the use of the words referring to handguns as “an entire class of ‘arms’” is a clear statement that the Court believed handguns are a subset of the broader class of “arms” protected by the “right to keep and bear arms.” In sum, when the Court used the word “handguns,” it was describing the particular and narrow issue it had to decide—the constitutionality of the D.C. regulations that amounted to a total handgun ban. But when you look further at the opinion—and not at some syllabus but the actual opinion itself—you will see that the Court first had to explain the scope of protected arms as a whole to consider whether handguns fit within that scope of protected arms. And here, when the Court is explaining the scope of protected arms, the Court goes far beyond handguns. Consider, for example, how SCOTUS had to address the prior case of U.S. v. Miller and that case’s dicta which suggested the RKBA was limited to protecting military arms: We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial [Page 625] and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra. District Of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-625 (200 (emphasis on the word "what" in original). If SCOTUS believed the amendment only applied to handguns, then it would have said so and it would have never bothered explaining how a “short-barreled shotgun” fell outside the scope of the right’s protection (because every firearm that was not a handgun would already be outside the scope). In addition, SCOTUS addressed the frivolous argument that the amendment would only protect those arms (whether handguns or not) which were in existence at the time of the Amendment’s ratification. Once again, the Court did not limit the scope of the right to handguns: Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. District Of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (200 (bold emphasis added by me). So while the narrow ruling dealt with a handgun ban—Heller clearly says the scope of the right protects “arms” beyond handguns. In my opinion, no one who has actually read the opinion can credibly take the position you have claimed. I would suggest you read the opinion before you claim “The Heller decision makes no comment in the ruling one way or another on other types of firearms other then handguns in actionable part if the ruling. If you want to say in some strange way, it supports the use of firearms in general, to this I laugh at you.” (and, as an aside, I continue my opinion that SCOTUS did not take any position—either in support of or against—the constitutionality of D.C.’s licensing and registration scheme). At least these are my thoughts. Agree or disagree as you will.
Absolutely correct. "...right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes..." Any number of these traditionally lawful purposes involves a firearm other than a handgun.
Thus demonstrating the ruling was not actually read on the part of yourself, as the language is very clear. The word "arms" being utilized rather than the word "handguns" demonstrates the second amendment is not limited exclusively to one type of firearm or another, but rather covers all firearms currently available on the private market.
Your problem is, you haven’t read the revised regulations in DC after Heller. There has yet to be a successful challenge to those states and locals that have literally, banned assault weapons. So your argument holds no water.
None of which does anything to actually address the points that have been raised. The only thing the above statement on the part of yourself does, is confirm that there are certain individuals who hold public office, who believe that they are both legally entitled, and morally obligated, to ignore not only the precedent set by the united state supreme court, but also the united states constitution, simply because they feel they know better than everyone else.
It has everything to do with the ruling. The new regs were written with advice and consent of the SC. This is standard practice. You are so far removed from reality it’s hilarious.
Except for the fact that such cannot actually be proven on the part of yourself. It cannot be proven the united state supreme court was asked to assist in the drafting of these new firearm-related restrictions. Just as it cannot be proven the united state supreme court consented to the new firearm-related restrictions as they were drafted.
Did I say it was asked to assist ? Dah. You really do make up stuff. You need to read the opinion. It spells out exactly what the DC court must do to comply with the regs to attain consent if the courts. . That’s part of the ruling. Ha ha....You still haven’t read it have you ?
Nothing matching the narrative being presented on the part of yourself has been found. If such was indeed the case, it would have been quoted and presented by yourself in confirmation of the statement. Yet such was not done.
Using “ such” inappropriately doesn’t make you an expert. You really didn’t read the ruling did you ?
The ruling has indeed been read. That is why it is known that the narrative being presented on the part of yourself is factually incorrect, and not actually based on the ruling.
If the statement on the part of yourself were factually correct, the portion in question of the Heller ruling would have been cited by yourself, and presented for everyone to see just what it says. But such was not done. Instead of a simple effort that would require no more than five minutes of time, a constant and ongoing game of coyness is being engaged in by yourself to suggest a sense of superiority, based on a factually deficient reading of the Heller ruling that no one else present agrees with or even comprehends.
A good OP. The most worrisome issue for 2dA homers is that SCOTUS has reserved the right to review its decisions on 2dA matters, meaning it could rule to ban "weapons of war" for ownership and carry by civilians.
The ongoing "weapons of war" theme is about racism. Gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America, that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a "suspect idea," and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race. The poster above, and other gun control advocates today, are not so foolish as to openly promote racist laws (even when they do). What relevance does the racist past of gun control laws have? Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites. Disarming those whom you wish to economically disadvantage, has a certain worrisome validity to it. The NRA is guilty of it too.
You would have been correct if only Heller did not include the language I quoted to you which you have ignored.
I suggest you read the actual opinion rather than a summary. Your syllabus likely focuses on this language: “In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.” District Of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 632 (200 This is the Court telling D.C. that it has ruled the handgun ban unconstitutional, and it ordered D.C. to issue a permit for Mr. Heller unless he is already barred from possession (like being a felon). But this is not to be misconstrued as either “advice” or “consent” regarding the propriety of the licensing/permitting scheme D.C. uses. If you read the actual opinion you will see SCOTUS refused to take any position—whether for or against—the licensing/permitting requirement. There simply was no advice or consent provided on this issue. It goes back the constitutional limitation on the power of SCOTUS to only decide a “case or controversy.” In Heller, neither side in the case wanted SCOTUS to rule on the licensing/permitting requirements, and so SCOTUS properly refused to take any position on it: “Before this Court petitioners have stated that “if the handgun ban is struck down and respondent registers a handgun, he could obtain a license, assuming he is not otherwise disqualified,” by which they apparently mean if he is not a felon and is not insane. Brief for Petitioners 58. Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74-75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.” District Of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 632 (200 (bole emphasis added by me) There simply was no advice or consent given. The only correct statement that can be made is D.C.’s licensing/permitting scheme has not yet been reviewed for a constitutionality ruling by SCOTUS.
NOWHERE does it say Heller is entitled to anyother firearm except a REGISTERED HANDGUN. AND, HELLER MUST BE LICENSED AS WELL. Tell us where in the opinion does it say that handguns or ANY OTHER firearm cannot be regulated. 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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 arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
All useless bloviation. Fact, Heller or anyone else in DC must be licensed to carry a handgun, EVEN IN THIER OWN HOME. Not only that, but the HANDGUN MUST BE REGISTERED. All your talk is useless. The above ruling allows this AND the ban on assault weapons. But keep jawing. It doesn’t change anything.
