Some thoughts on Heller v D.C.

[Bailey Guns]

In reviewing the Heller v DC ruling I came across this portion:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

Now, I'm no attorney, but I'm thinking this portion of the ruling might give some "ammo" in a future AWB fight. The court plainly stated that a ban on an "entire class" of guns commonly used for defense would clearly be unconstitutional. Well, I think it's no secret that with several million AR-15 style rifles in the hands of common citizens that many of those guns are used for defense of self and/or property. I don't think it would be difficult to prove this and thus fight any future AWB on a state or federal level.

[DeusExMachina]

Look no further than US vs. Miller. The US attorneys argued that the 2nd Amendment applied to military-style weapons, citing that the well regulated militia (of all able bodied men) would require common military weapons of the day.

[DOC]

The courts decide what it says. Not what is written. If they want to say it narrowly means handguns that are semiauto like a revolver but not semi auto like a glock that is how low they will go. The court needs to grow some balls and widely define it and put an end to all the bickering about what guns are ok.
But with all the shootings lately the spell cast over the non gun owners out there it would seem like its not the right time to be progun. I disagree, now is the right time to put an end to the histaria about guns while the leftist gun grabbers have worked people into a frenzy. Its not popular but right.

[Storm]

I agree with Bailey on the "common usage" condition of Heller as ammunition against either a state or Federal AWB. If won, it would restrict or nullify all the other state AWBs like California and New York. ;-) :-D

[BPTactical]

I agree with Bailey on the "common usage" condition of Heller as ammunition against either a state or Federal AWB. If won, it would restrict or nullify all the other state AWBs like California and New York. ;-) :-D

Not really, you need to read more of the opinion on Heller v DC. It does state that a class of firearm may not be banned it also states that regulation may be executed at a state level.

[spqrzilla]

Heller did not decide the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states, because it was the District of Columbia, which is not a state. McDonald was the case that applied Heller's holding to the state's.

[Bailey Guns]

Right...I know McDonald "incorporated" the 2nd Amend. But Heller clearly states a ban can't be applied to an entire class of arms commonly in use for defense. McDonald, which was decided post Heller, would help as well.

Personally, from what I've read about Miller, it wasn't a real strongly worded case in many regards. I think the recent rulings are more appropriate to argue, though Miller, under the right circumstances, might apply.

[Milt]

The Miller case involved the first 'assault weapons ban', the NFA. The decision upheld NFA and the court will uphold Feinstein's bill if it becomes 'law'. It's only a reclassification of certain firearms, after all. And, it does not actually prohibit possession, but simply registers and taxes those 'dangerous weapons', for the children, of course...

As far as trusting in a 'good' Supreme Court ruling, how many people are now 'legally' packing heat in DC, even if only at home?

[spqrzilla]

Miller's holding was more narrow than that, its holding was that shotguns that fell under the NFA were not protected by the Second Amendment because no one came to the Supreme Court to show it that shotguns were part of militia equipment (even though the US Army issued shotguns to troops during the trench fighting of WWI just a couple of decades earlier).

[Ghosty]

I hope one of the Conservatives on SCOTUS doesn't pass away, then it's all over. Luckily, couldn't the current bench strike down Feinstein's travesty? Or does it have to wait until someone actually gets charged under it and can afford a lawyer to take it high enough in the system?