PDA

View Full Version : Did Heller mention ammo being covered by the 2A?


JGarrison
02-12-2010, 6:59 PM
I've done a search, and can't find any solid info. I did find one post mentioning that ammo was brought up in the Heller decision, but I couldn't find it when I reread the decision.

I am in a debate with some people claiming that ammunition is not covered by the 2A at all. :rolleyes:

pullnshoot25
02-12-2010, 7:08 PM
I believe it is, though I can't quote it.

Smack those people for me :)

dantodd
02-12-2010, 7:13 PM
I've done a search, and can't find any solid info. I did find one post mentioning that ammo was brought up in the Heller decision, but I couldn't find it when I reread the decision.

I am in a debate with some people claiming that ammunition is not covered by the 2A at all. :rolleyes:

You can point them to MINNEAPOLIS STAR v. MINNESOTA COMM'R OF REVENUE

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=460&invol=575

The SCOTUS essentially said that a tax specific to the press (and in this case only some of the press) is a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of Speech. There may be additional case law that I am unaware of, if so, I'm sure some of the more scholarly around will post it up.

Dr Rockso
02-12-2010, 7:13 PM
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-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. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Banning ammunition would make it impossible to use a firearm for lawful self-defense just as much as the DC restrictions (unless, of course, you have a Mosin-Nagant with a 15" spike bayonet).

JGarrison
02-12-2010, 7:25 PM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Banning ammunition would make it impossible to use a firearm for lawful self-defense just as much as the DC restrictions (unless, of course, you have a Mosin-Nagant with a 15" spike bayonet).

Exactly what I quoted. His response.

"Scalia's remarks do not specifically address ammunition. As the 2nd Amendment lacks specifics, the Heller case only implies ammo would be protected under the 2nd Amendment with a functionality argument."

The guy is clueless:chris:

hoffmang
02-12-2010, 8:07 PM
The Heller holding is that you have the right to have a functional firearm in the home for self defense. Ammunition is a core component of "functional."

-Gene

RomanDad
02-12-2010, 8:29 PM
Parker (the Heller Case at the Appellate Court level, which Heller Upheld) spent much more time on "Functionality" and is the best source for ammunition (no pun intended) on the subject. See Parker v District of Columbia, 437 F.3d 370


Finally, there is the District’s requirement under D.C. Code
7-2507.02 that a registered firearm be kept “unloaded and
disassembled or bound by trigger lock or similar device, unless
such firearm is kept at [a] place of business, or while being used
for lawful recreational purposes within the District of
Columbia.” This provision bars Heller from lawfully using a
handgun for self protection in the home because the statute
allows only for use of a firearm during recreational activities.
As appellants accurately point out, 7-2507.02 would reduce a
pistol to a useless hunk of “metal and springs.” Heller does not
appear to challenge the requirement that a gun ordinarily be kept
unloaded or even that a trigger lock be attached under some
circumstances. He simply contends that he is entitled to the
possession of a “functional” firearm to be employed in case of
a threat to life or limb. The District responds that,
notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would
likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted
with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial
lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a
constitutional right. Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying
a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on
the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold
it unconstitutional.



Heller itself sites an Alabama case, State v Reid and quotes the following passage:

A statute which, under the pretense of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of Self Defense, would be clearly unconstitutional."


Emphasis added.