Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky4968
FWIW, in the Heller case all 9 justices said that the 2nd Amendment referred to an individual right that existed before the formation of the United States. They differed as to what might be "reasonable" restrictions (like no nukes, for instance). But they put to rest the idea that it only dealt with state militias and was did not apply to the common folk.
|
I will have to disagree with you here. My reading of the dessenting opinion is that they found the 2nd to be an individual right but only as it relates to being a member of a militia. Which means in practical terms that only individuals who are in the National Guard have a right to keep and bear arms. Which of course makes no sense.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont.../06/07-290.pdf
"Similarly, the words “the people” in the Second Amendment
refer back to the object announced in the Amendment’s
preamble. They remind us that it is the collective
action of individuals having a duty to serve in the militia
that the text directly protects and, perhaps more importantly,
that the ultimate purpose of the Amendment was
to protect the States’ share of the divided sovereignty
created by the Constitution". p. 77
"As used in the Second
Amendment, the words “the people” do not enlarge the
right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership
of weapons outside the context of service in a wellregulated
militia." p.78
"...the “right to keep and bear arms”
protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection
with service in a state-organized militia." p. 78
"Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably
supports the Court’s overwrought and novel description
of the Second Amendment as 'elevat[ing] above
all other interests' 'the right of law-abiding, responsible
citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.'" p. 84
"Until today, it has been understood that legislatures
may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so
long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a
well-regulated militia."p. 112
Reasonable restrictions were not addressed as they were not part of Heller.
"The Court’s announcement of a
new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private
purposes upsets that settled understanding, but
leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the
scope of permissible regulations." p. 112