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.
I read through the thing, and it does not confine the 2nd amendment to just the home is the way I read it. What it indicates is that there are other standing prohibitions that may be enforced just as there are prohibitions on the 1st amendment, i.e. felons and those who are mentally incapacitated have restrictions on gun ownership and those states that have restrictions on open or concealed carry are not in violation of the 2nd amendment.
Here is the summed opinion as stated on page 64:
"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.
* * * We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54-55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I noticed the wording about having the right to own guns for protection IN THE HOME. The Brady jerkheads have already exploited that bit of unfortunate wording. No right to have a gun outside your home.
The ruling state's "such as protection in the home"
the brady jerkheads conveniently left those two words out
Spider: read the first 100 pages - they put Citizen and Militia back together at later pages, so <no, I don't think that they could make it so you could only have gun in home. A militia is never found exclusively inside a home...
Comments
Here is the summed opinion as stated on page 64:
"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.
* * * We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54-55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered."
I noticed the wording about having the right to own guns for protection IN THE HOME. The Brady jerkheads have already exploited that bit of unfortunate wording. No right to have a gun outside your home.
The ruling state's "such as protection in the home"
the brady jerkheads conveniently left those two words out