"To summarize: the Ordinance does not meaningfully impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their homes with usable firearms, the core of the right as Heller analyzed it."
Not good.
I have read this several times and it is a conundrum.
I see the Court has affirmed gun ownership as an individual right while it has confirmed that it is a collective right and limited the scope of the individual right.
That is why I wanted some independent confirmation — this just doesn’t make sense.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say a word about “home protection”. It doesn’t make a distinction between “home” and “away from home”. It says The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. It doesn’t say the right may be infringed a little bit, or by a federal court, or by local laws.
All the famous dictators in history have forbid their people from having their own weapons. Most of these dictators have been socialists: 1) Lenin, Stalin and their successors in the USSR; 2) Mao in China; 3) Hitler and his National Socialist Party in Germany; 4) Kim in North Korea; 5) Castro in Cuba; and (6) Saddam Hussein (Baathist Party modeled after the Nazis) in Iraq.
Those who would take away our right under the Second Amendment are “suspects” - they want to undermine freedom and destroy the United States.
Actually, I think it is very, very good. This focus on the "home" could allow the Supreme Court not only to rule on incorporation, but also to take an initial stab at "bear" as in "keep and bear".
The Supreme Court should find that it is ludicrous to expect that counties, many of which hold title to public roadways, can pass a blanket prohibition against bearing arms on such roadways.