In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
SC Didn't rule on "reasonable restrictions."
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
Stole this from the politics forum posted by new member little acorn:
In his angry protest of the Supreme Court's recent decision finding the DC gun ban unconstitutional, Mayor Bloomberg of NYC said:
"...the court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual's
right to bear arms, while also affirming the constitutionality of
reasonable restrictions...."
It's that last part that many people seem to be getting wrong, about "reasonable restrictions".
The Heller ruling did NOT affirm the constitutionality of "reasonable restrictions". It merely declined to rule on them. Meaning, it neither approved nor disapproved.
What it did do, was declare that the first part of the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,") had no effect on the command part ("the RPKBA shall not be infringed."). The first part neither expanded nor restricted that later command. And without expansion or restriction, that command is pretty absolute.
The Supremes left THAT as their (oblique) comment on "restrictions". And they left the question of which restrictions were "reasonable", for future cases in that light.
It's going to be an interesting next few years in the courts as case after case is brought to explore this issue, now that the Heller case is decided the way it was.
In his angry protest of the Supreme Court's recent decision finding the DC gun ban unconstitutional, Mayor Bloomberg of NYC said:
"...the court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual's
right to bear arms, while also affirming the constitutionality of
reasonable restrictions...."
It's that last part that many people seem to be getting wrong, about "reasonable restrictions".
The Heller ruling did NOT affirm the constitutionality of "reasonable restrictions". It merely declined to rule on them. Meaning, it neither approved nor disapproved.
What it did do, was declare that the first part of the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,") had no effect on the command part ("the RPKBA shall not be infringed."). The first part neither expanded nor restricted that later command. And without expansion or restriction, that command is pretty absolute.
The Supremes left THAT as their (oblique) comment on "restrictions". And they left the question of which restrictions were "reasonable", for future cases in that light.
It's going to be an interesting next few years in the courts as case after case is brought to explore this issue, now that the Heller case is decided the way it was.
Comments
Next up is the "reasonable" restrictions of CA, IL, NYC, etc., what constitutues, an "arm," and an "infringment."
the rulings on heller left more questions than it gave answers and it does seem as if that was deliberate by the justices, and from what i was reading between the lines, one of them was dropping hints that the court would rule on other questions, but it needed someone to ask them those questions....and quickly!
Ah, some wiseguy will just yell "war on terror" at the top of his lungs as an excuse to ban all guns and we'll have some * agree and say, "Well, our freedoms are being used against us... duh!"
well, if anyone would know anything about *, it would be the #1 demo/leftist/5th columnist/anti-American stooge on the forum.