PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS RULING - Emphasis on handgun in the home for self defense


GunOwner
06-28-2010, 3:16 PM
Should this make me worry? The ruling does mention the historical justification for the right was also to prevent government from oppressing citizens but goes on to imply that the time for that justification has passed. I am concerned it opens the door to narrowing gun rights to handgun only (aka no "assault weapons") self defense in the home (aka "no CCW").

Connor P Price
06-28-2010, 3:19 PM
I'm a bit worried about that aspect as well.

FullMetalJacket
06-28-2010, 3:25 PM
I believe the original Heller ruling said something about weapons traditionally used by Americans for self-defense. I'd think that would include rifles and shotguns, so a general rifle/shotgun ban would seem to be off the table. Our enemies are going to have a very hard time selling any kind of long gun ban, especially since that would cause many "sportsmen" (who might not be threatened by a handgun or AW ban) to enter the fray.

The problem is "assault weapons." Anything classified as an assault weapon MAY (emphasis on MAY) still be subject to Constitutional bans, go guess what? EVERYTHING is now going to become an assault weapon. Washington D.C. has tried this very same nonsense, classifying automatic pistols as machine guns.

I think we just keep chipping away. Now that handguns are protected, the handguns on the ban list should be removed. I can't see any halfway reasonable justification for keeping an Uzi pistol on the ban list when it is no more capable than a Glock or Smith and Wesson. Of course, we'll have to see if reason prevails...

dantodd
06-28-2010, 3:34 PM
No. Firearms are protected that are "in common use" and the AR15, for example, is the most common long arm in America right now.

As for "in the home," that was the case at hand, not the extent of the right. The way SCOTUS works is they look at a specific issue brought before them and determine if the issue is in line with the law. In this case, they decided on the issue (is the second amendment of the constitution incorporated as against the states) in front of them. The reason that Gura and other smart people brought THIS case is that the facts of the case, a gun ban, were similar to the Heller decision so there was no reason to re-hear is a certain law is constitutional to determine if a constitutional test is even applicable.

IOW: We know that a handgun ban is prohibited by the meaning of the Second Amendment through Heller. Chicago's law is very similar so we need to know IF the law must comply with the Second Amendment. This was the question in front of the court, they ruled on this narrow issue only. Now that the lower courts know that the Second Amendment applies they have to now review the case in light of existing Second Amendment case law.

What you will see is also SCOTUS's process for coming to their conclusion and how they define the right specified in 2A to determine if it applies in this case. Here we can be hopeful as the opinion defines the core right of the 2A to be "self defense" and the right to keep AND BEAR arms to achieve such a goal. It is a very tangled web to try and say that you have a fundamental right to "self defense" and the right to use a firearm to exercise that right but then come back and try to limit that right to "in the home" only. That would be like saying you have the right to free speech but only in the home.