We need to discuss Page 54 III. Do we get M16s or not?

[tenpercentfirearms]

III
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of

Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55
Opinion of the Court

arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,
Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.
Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A
Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky
482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable
Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary
of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment
of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.
Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United
States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C.
381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849);
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier,
71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
——————
26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only
as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

56 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court

tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right

So lets break this down.

[Subvertz]

I am capable of military service, in fact, I am in it. I should get an M-16.

[tenpercentfirearms]

We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.”307 U. S., at 179.

This sounds good to me, but that is because I understand that the weapons in common use at this time are M4s, M240s, M249s, MP5s, and a whole host of others.

We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.”

This part worries me because how stupid is it to say the government can prohibit the carrying of "dangerous" weapons. Every weapon could be dangerous you dumb arse! That is why we carry them. WTF? How can he be so sharp through most of this and say something so stupid?

[Subvertz]

When RKBA cases push through court, they will quote the god parts, and the Brady's will pick out stuff like that. I think the clear meaning will shine through. Overall, it still looks pretty good for us.

Were you for real about the high-caps?

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by Subvertz

Were you for real about the high-caps?

Yeah, I said I would sell them to anyone with a law enforcement ID. Screw large caps, we need to figure this part out. Everything else is worthless if we don't get a clear understanding of this section. I do not understand it.

[trashman]

What is clear is that Heller will not resolve whether or not the NFA is constitutional on its face. Another case would need to be brought to resolve that, I think.

Scalia leaves the door open -- and it's probably the crux of the minority's uncomfortability with the individual RKBA: principally he states that if the 2A is tied to militia service, then we should have access to militia weapons.

(Actually he states the inverse -- if the right to own militia weapons is banned, then the RKBA is "detached" from the Militia ("prefatory") clause.

--Neill

[sobiloff]

It seems to me that the affirmation is about as weak as it can get. Sure, we have an individual right to keep and bear arms, but that right can be heavily regulated--bans on concealed carry, bans on bearing arms in certain "sensitive" locations, bans on "dangerous and unusual" weapons are all fair game.

To me it sounds like the only thing the Heller decision got us was the right to keep pedestrian firearms fully functional in our own homes. That's nice, but that's about as small a victory as possible. The majority probably had to water it down to that degree to get Stevens on board.

[edwardm]

My first read leads me to think that the court is referring to those firearms commonly available to private persons, not the military. An M4 is not commonly available to a private person, but (in most states) an AR-15 or AK-47 most certainly is. In Miller's time, you didn't walk down to Montgomery Wards and pick up a shotgun with a 14" barrel. But you could walk down and get one, say, with a 28" or 26" barrel. At the same time, in 1789, you didn't grab the 12 pounder cannon off the fireplace mantle, but you certainly would have grabbed the musket and the pistols.

Same with the AR and AK pattern rifles. You don't walk down to your FFL and grab an M-16/M4, but you can get an AR or AK. And I suspect that this would mean California's outright ban-except-by-permit would be in question. Relating back to the "arbitrary and capricious" language Scalia used regarding the DC license scheme, it's possible that the CA ban would stand on the books, but that the permitting process would become something akin to "shall issue". This makes the ban de facto non-existent in practice, likely satisfying any Due Process concerns.

But, while the court touched on incorporation, they explicitly said they weren't deciding that question since it was not before the Court. Though in one of the footnotes (mere dicta, I know), Scalia dropped a strong hint that the 2nd would incorporate as readily as the 1st does. So any legal action that might move forward would have to tackle incorporation as a threshold issue.

All that said, there is the question of whether prior restrictions on what is commonly available (i.e. NFA restrictions) present a circularity issue. If the ban is unconstitutionally making something not available, what is the remedy? Is there an outside limitation applicable to SBR/SBS laws? Maybe the goal here was to say that outright bans won't stand, and we'll consider less restrictive measures down the road if/when they get to the courts.

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

Yeah, I said I would sell them to anyone with a law enforcement ID. Screw large caps, we need to figure this part out. Everything else is worthless if we don't get a clear understanding of this section. I do not understand it.

[tenpercentfirearms]

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause.

He is saying that if we object to his stupid "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”" we would do so by claiming the operating clause just got detached from the prefatory clause. He says on page 25

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with
an operative clause that creates an individual right to
keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the
history that the founding generation knew and that we
have described above. That history showed that the way
tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied
men was not by banning the militia but simply by
taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents.

He says they fit together perfectly and he even talks about the best way to stop the militia is ban their arms.

His rebuttle to our claim that we need M16s is

But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty.

He is saying the firearms we lawfully possess at home we can bring to militia duty.

Then he says,

may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large.

In order for us to be an effectie militia, we need highly unusual weapons. He said just a few sentences ago that "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”"

So he is saying we would need unusual weapons, but he said they can ban those unusual weapons.

This part gives me some hope.

Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

Why bring up that our small arms wouldn't do us any good against bombers and tanks if we can't have them anyway? This to me sounds like he is defending the argument that we don't need full auto because we are going to get nuked.

This next sentence is what has me way confused.

But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right

What in the hell does that mean? The prefatory clause is the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". So is he saying that even though modern developments have made it hard to get us up to speed to be a "well regulated militia", we are assed out on M16s? Or is he saying that we just can't have nukes and MOABs? If the prefatory doesn't fit as good as it used to with the right, what exactly is their interpretation of the right?

This whole part has me pissed because I can't understand it. If I can't understand it, then the mother fing rat bastard liberals can argue we don't get M16s. F Scalia. @$#^%@&%$#@&#&#&#&#&#@!~$#&^

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

I don't think Scalia is announcing broad right to have M16s in case challenging handgun ban. Rather he is reaffirming limitations on "dangerous weapons" like M16s. Only safe guns are guns in common use in 18th century. One question: as far as modern weapons goes, will common usage trump "dangerous weapons"? In other words, even if semiauto AWs are in common usage can they still be banned as "dangerous weapons"?

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Only safe guns are guns in common use in 18th century.

If you are not playing devils advocate, you are dead wrong on that one. No where in there is he saying that you can only have what they had in the 18th century. In fact, he even rebutted that in there somewhere. I saw it.

Page 8.

Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

However,

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

One question: as far as modern weapons goes, will common usage trump "dangerous weapons"? In other words, even if semiauto AWs are in common usage can they still be banned as "dangerous weapons"?

Damn good question. The whole dangerous weapons statement was the absolutely most horrible thing he could have put in there. It simply makes no sense. All weapons are dangerous, hense the whole reason to have them. What a blasted moron.

[webster223]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

even if semiauto AWs are in common usage can they still be banned as "dangerous weapons"?

I guarantee that's the position our CA legislature and the 9th circuit will take. Heller does not appear designed to upset the enforceability of existing state gun-control laws falling short of outright bans on owning and keeping firearms. It's still an important win, even if it's unlikely to change anything in CA.

[dixieD]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

What in the hell does that mean? The prefatory clause is the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". So is he saying that even though modern developments have made it hard to get us up to speed to be a "well regulated militia", we are assed out on M16s? Or is he saying that we just can't have nukes and MOABs? If the prefatory doesn't fit as good as it used to with the right, what exactly is their interpretation of the right?

This whole part has me pissed because I can't understand it. If I can't understand it, then the mother fing rat bastard liberals can argue we don't get M16s. F Scalia. @$#^%@&%$#@&#&#&#&#&#@!~$#&^

Are non-government/citizen militias legal? I thought California at least had laws against militias. The reason the first California Appleseed was cancelled was due to LA DOJ saying anti-militia charges would be filed...

Maybe he is saying that laws against militias reduce the significance of the prefatory clause.

[drclark]

I believe that dangerous and unusual weapons refer to anti aircraft missles, tanks, laser guided bombs, & the like. I believe that machine guns are in posession and lawful use by many american citizens and have been historically. We may not get rid of NFA altoghther, but we may be able to challenge CA's ban on NFA weapons for the common citizen and eventually the 86 "new mg ban".

drc

[ptoguy2002]

Hopefully the dangerous weapons thing in the Heller ruling won't affect the overturning of the CA ban.
The 9th circuit ruled the CA ban consitutional based on a collective right. Scotus has now said that its an individual right, which basically just kills and destorys the 9th circuit's logic for upholding CA awb.
I would hope that it would be hard for the 9th to switch lanes and change logic to have the same outcome.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

If you are not playing devils advocate, you are dead wrong on that one. No where in there is he saying that you can only have what they had in the 18th century. In fact, he even rebutted that in there somewhere. I saw it.

Page 8.



However,

Damn good question. The whole dangerous weapons statement was the absolutely most horrible thing he could have put in there. It simply makes no sense. All weapons are dangerous, hense the whole reason to have them. What a blasted moron.

Let me try to refine this a little. The only firearms that are truly protected meaning you can never legitimately try to ban them are those in common use in the 18th century. Modern versions of firearms in common use in 18th century may also "protected"; presumably the DC plaintiffs have modern firearms. But even with respect to handguns I am seeing room to argue for a ban of specific types (semiautomatics, "Saturday Night Specials") using the "dangerous weapon" theory. Even in the Heller decision they are not saying all handguns of any kind are safe, only the complete ban is unconstitutional. This is where the second question is really important: is common usage of a modern semi-auto or compact handgun enough to defeat the "dangerous weapon" argument? Lots of what if's in the opinion. Especially what exactly a dangerous firearm if all firearms are dangerous? The anti-gun cities and states are going to keep trying to regulate "dangerous weapons" (Isn't the Cal Penal Code called the Dangerous WEapon Control Act or something like that?) and there will be challenges and appeals, etc. It will be a long time before this gets fleshed out again and we may have to wait for a disagreement among the federal appellete districts or something like that before SCOTUS is going to be interested in taking another 2nd amendment case. 9th Circuit isn't going to be friendly all of a sudden.

[ptoguy2002]

Or file a form 1 with the ATF for an M16 and see what they say about the matter !

[grywlfbg]

But the argument could be made that the only reason M16s and the like aren't in "common use" is BECAUSE they were effectively banned, not because they aren't useful or desired. I would certainly buy one - I don't really care about FA but 3-round burst would be sweet.

[Prc329]

Originally Posted by dixieD

Are non-government/citizen militias legal? I thought California at least had laws against militias. The reason the first California Appleseed was cancelled was due to LA DOJ saying anti-militia charges would be filed...

Maybe he is saying that laws against militias reduce the significance of the prefatory clause.

I think that is what he is saying, maybe. Even if a militia is outlawed the citizens still have the right to bear arms.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by grywlfbg

But the argument could be made that the only reason M16s and the like aren't in "common use" is BECAUSE they were effectively banned, not because they aren't useful or desired. I would certainly buy one - I don't really care about FA but 3-round burst would be sweet.

The reason they were banned is because they were "dangerous" and that would be ok. What about the "dangerous" firearms that eluded regulation initially, but were subsequently deemed "dangerous"? If they are in common use in the meantime what would happen?

[AYEAREFIFTEEN]

Originally Posted by drclark

... and eventually the 86 "new mg ban".

There would be a ton of angry folks out there that paid $15,000-$20,000 for an M16 to find out that the 86 ban is over turned and the M16 is now $2000.

[dixieD]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Let me try to refine this a little. The only firearms that are truly protected meaning you can never legitimately try to ban them are those in common use in the 18th century. Modern versions of firearms in common use in 18th century may also "protected"; presumably the DC plaintiffs have modern firearms. But even with respect to handguns I am seeing room to argue for a ban of specific types (semiautomatics, "Saturday Night Specials") using the "dangerous weapon" theory. Even in the Heller decision they are not saying all handguns of any kind are safe, only the complete ban is unconstitutional. This is where the second question is really important: is common usage of a modern semi-auto or compact handgun enough to defeat the "dangerous weapon" argument? Lots of what if's in the opinion. Especially what exactly a dangerous firearm if all firearms are dangerous? The anti-gun cities and states are going to keep trying to regulate "dangerous weapons" (Isn't the Cal Penal Code called the Dangerous WEapon Control Act or something like that?) and there will be challenges and appeals, etc. It will be a long time before this gets fleshed out again and we may have to wait for a disagreement among the federal appellete districts or something like that before SCOTUS is going to be interested in taking another 2nd amendment case. 9th Circuit isn't going to be friendly all of a sudden.

The decision does say this...
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding."

[Subvertz]

We need some serious lawyer opinion up in here

[Ironchef]

“in common use at the time...”... “dangerous and unusual
weapons.”

I'm hoping, at the least, the scare of banning semi-auto rifles will at least finally subside. And "dangerous and unusual" would mean things not supported by an individual normally equipped with small arms, correct? So dangerous and unusual is pointed at rocket launchers, rpgs, grenades, etc? I'm not familiar with the "dangerous and unusual." Does it denote "dangerous to anyone at the end of the [firearm] when it is fired?" or "Unusual because a holstered handgun on a civilian hasn't been seen on the streets of San Francisco in many decades?"

It's not hard to see how the Brady's will tear this apart. If it's a total loss for them, they'll continue their assault on ammo, interstate shipping, etc. Otherwise, I can see them defining dangerous and unusual, common at the time, etc...leaving us with kentucky rifles and muskets.

[tgriffin]

See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769)

"9. THE offence of riding or going armed, with dangerous or unufual weapons, is a crime againft the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited "

3 B. Wilson,
Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804)

"Affrays are crimes against the personal safety of the citizens; for in their personal safety, their personal security and peace are undoubtedly comprehended....snip.... In some cases, there may be an affray, where there is no actual violence; as where a man arms himself with dangerous and unusual weapons, in such a manner, as will naturally diffuse a terrour among the people."

[ptoguy2002]

Originally Posted by AYEAREFIFTEEN

There would be a ton of angry folks out there that paid $15,000-$20,000 for an M16 to find out that the 86 ban is over turned and the M16 is now $2000.

F-em.
If they paid out 20K for an M16 on the premis that its an "investment", they can afford to loose 20K on it being a "bad investment."

[grywlfbg]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

9th Circuit isn't going to be friendly all of a sudden.

But I recall that a number of 9th circuit decisions list "the 2nd Amendment is a collective right" as their reason for deciding. Can't those decisions be revisited now?

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Let me try to refine this a little. The only firearms that are truly protected meaning you can never legitimately try to ban them are those in common use in the 18th century. Modern versions of firearms in common use in 18th century may also "protected"; presumably the DC plaintiffs have modern firearms.

I didn't see that anywhere. His use of 18th century in this section is to only say that the 18th century militia had pretty moden weapons and for us to get to that same level, we need some pretty sophisticated and unusual weapons. There is zero credibility to a "only 18th century weapons" apply or even their modern variants. How do I know? I already quoted where is dispells this very argument.

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

But even with respect to handguns I am seeing room to argue for a ban of specific types (semiautomatics, "Saturday Night Specials") using the "dangerous weapon" theory. Even in the Heller decision they are not saying all handguns of any kind are safe, only the complete ban is unconstitutional. This is where the second question is really important: is common usage of a modern semi-auto or compact handgun enough to defeat the "dangerous weapon" argument? Lots of what if's in the opinion. Especially what exactly a dangerous firearm if all firearms are dangerous? The anti-gun cities and states are going to keep trying to regulate "dangerous weapons" (Isn't the Cal Penal Code called the Dangerous WEapon Control Act or something like that?) and there will be challenges and appeals, etc. It will be a long time before this gets fleshed out again and we may have to wait for a disagreement among the federal appellete districts or something like that before SCOTUS is going to be interested in taking another 2nd amendment case. 9th Circuit isn't going to be friendly all of a sudden.

I do agree with you here. The dangerous and unusual weapons is a huge disappointment. The anti's will 100% argue that certain firearms are dangerous or unusual.

I am encouraged that right now semi-auto AR15s and AK47s with detachable magazines and evil features are extremely common and usual right now. We very well might see an end to our ban. Then again, they are dangerous weapons.

Does everyone see how this dangerous weapons thing feels like a complete disaster to me? I know nukes and missles and explosives are dangerous and unusual, but the anti's think AK47s, AR15s, and unsafe handguns are dangerous and unusual. We are right back to square one in my opinion. Congratulations Washington DC, you can have guns in your home again. BFD.

[ptoguy2002]

A firearm by its very nature is dangerous, which I would hope would be taken into consideration when determining what is dangerous and unusual.

Dangerous and unusual 100 years ago would have been a semi auto pistol.

An FNH P90 today might be called dangerous and unusual.

[Rumpled]

I don't like them using the statement about Miller, as Miller is flawed and in fact SBS was in common usage in the military.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

I didn't see that anywhere. His use of 18th century in this section is to only say that the 18th century militia had pretty moden weapons and for us to get to that same level, we need some pretty sophisticated and unusual weapons. There is zero credibility to a "only 18th century weapons" apply or even their modern variants. How do I know? I already quoted where is dispells this very argument.


I do agree with you here. The dangerous and unusual weapons is a huge disappointment. The anti's will 100% argue that certain firearms are dangerous or unusual.

I am encouraged that right now semi-auto AR15s and AK47s with detachable magazines and evil features are extremely common and usual right now. We very well might see an end to our ban. Then again, they are dangerous weapons.

Does everyone see how this dangerous weapons thing feels like a complete disaster to me?

Alright, I have to go to work now.

The "and" is very important.

"dangerous AND unusual"

All guns are potentially dangerous but not unusual, the AR and AK are not unusual, a M134D is unusual.

[PIRATE14]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

I didn't see that anywhere. His use of 18th century in this section is to only say that the 18th century militia had pretty moden weapons and for us to get to that same level, we need some pretty sophisticated and unusual weapons. There is zero credibility to a "only 18th century weapons" apply or even their modern variants. How do I know? I already quoted where is dispells this very argument.


I do agree with you here. The dangerous and unusual weapons is a huge disappointment. The anti's will 100% argue that certain firearms are dangerous or unusual.

I am encouraged that right now semi-auto AR15s and AK47s with detachable magazines and evil features are extremely common and usual right now. We very well might see an end to our ban. Then again, they are dangerous weapons.

Does everyone see how this dangerous weapons thing feels like a complete disaster to me?

Alright, I have to go to work now.

Probably have to be approached as to why a person in AZ can own certain types of weapons and you can't in CALIFORNIA........

Now there are permits that can be issued in the state so, you'll have to get them to issue permits......

Gonna be a tough issue to overcome.......

[tenpercentfirearms]

I rest my case.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/r...hp?release=992

“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.

“For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.

[AYEAREFIFTEEN]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

I am encouraged that right now semi-auto AR15s and AK47s with detachable magazines and evil features are extremely common and usual right now. We very well might see an end to our ban. Then again, they are dangerous weapons.

Perhaps if the good people of California that own OLRs (50,000 or so now?) stepped up and showed how COMMON they really are and the fact that NOT ONE has been involved in a crime, they aren't as "dangerous" as previously thought.

[tiki]

Originally Posted by sobiloff

It seems to me that the affirmation is about as weak as it can get. Sure, we have an individual right to keep and bear arms, but that right can be heavily regulated--bans on concealed carry, bans on bearing arms in certain "sensitive" locations, bans on "dangerous and unusual" weapons are all fair game.

To me it sounds like the only thing the Heller decision got us was the right to keep pedestrian firearms fully functional in our own homes. That's nice, but that's about as small a victory as possible. The majority probably had to water it down to that degree to get Stevens on board.

I read that differently. I read it to say that the bearing arms is seperate from keeping arms, and that bearing arms is to carry arms. I think what it says is that shall issue may be safe, but, open carry of a loaded firearm is protected. So, Kali may be forced to adopt a shall issue and make open carry illegal. So, they wouldn't be restricting your right to keep and bear, just imposing "sensible legislation" that you must do it concealed. And, since they would require a permit, they would have to issue it, which is what the DC ruling addressed. I don't care to open carry, but, if enough of us walked around with open carry, now protected by the ruling, then I think there will be pressure for them to go shall issue.

[rbgaynor]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

I rest my case.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/r...hp?release=992

I think this is just the Brady Campaign trying to put any kind of "we didn't get hosed" message out there using a highly selective reading of the opinion. For example "dangerous and unusual" from the opinion becomes "dangerous" in Brady-speak.

P.S. CNN showed Helmke giving this press-release outside the Court - he looked like he had just witnessed someone hit by a bus.

[dustoff31]

Just my .02, but my reading is that they are saying M-16s and the like are not covered by today's ruling. To me they are saying we just don't buy the "we need M-16s for militia purposes" argument. I'm basing that on the bolded sections below.

III
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of

Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55
Opinion of the Court

arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,
Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.
Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A
Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky
482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable
Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary
of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment
of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.
Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United
States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C.
381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849);
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier,
71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right

So lets break this down.

[Fjold]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

I rest my case.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/r...hp?release=992

The Brady bunch is saving face. They have no idea of the full implications of this decision any more than we do.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by Fjold

The Brady bunch is saving face. They have no idea of the full implications of this decision any more than we do.

No, the Brady Bunch is doing exactly what I predicted. They used to argue a well regulated militia was a tightly controlled state run agency. We know it means a well functioning or well equipped body of citizens.

This dangerous and unusual language is open to the same interpretation. The dangerous and unusual language allows the government to effecitvely say what they feel is dangerous and unusual. We all know you do not allow the government to determine what is dangerous and unusual of anything because they will use that to infringe on our rights.

Now unusual I could have lived with. Dangerous is completely absurd because every single firearm ever made is dangerous. Scalia is a moron. I hope to eat crow some day and I hope this works out. However, I see this entire decision as a non-decision because of one word, "Dangerous."

[Mikeb]

Oh I just can't decide what to bear today...
The 1911 in a slide or the 44 in a western holster?
Does the 44 make me look fat?

this is a good day
Mike