I think the founders meant for the 2A to assert that "the People" have the right to keep and bear arms, and I am one of those people, as are you.
Is it an unviolable right with no restrictions? There's the rub. Let's say that the SC validates the 2A as an individual right that "shall not be infringed". As I fully expect they will. Does that mean that the NFA and GCA68 and any silly AWB are invalidated? Does that mean that felons cannot be prohibited from owning guns? Does that mean that everyone can wear a gun into a courtroom or the office? Of course, the antis will throw up the old bazooka and nuclear warhead arguments. What are reasonable restrictions?
Somehow I doubt that the SC will dig very deep into that pandora's box. They will say that yes, it is an individual right, and be very vague on restrictions.
Since this case revolves around the right of DC residents to possess a working gun "in the home", maybe that will force them to override local restrictions.
So if the 2A is validated as an individual right, what do you think will be the legal fallout as to the NFA, felons, domestic violence, etc?
Yes, people get kinda nutzoid over restrictions - mostly because they don’t understand basic safety and defense well enough to articulate a sane stance, ignorance which culminates in “but what about felons with nukes?” “YES!” “NO!”
This case is only focused on private “keep”ing at home, with a strong implication of bearing at home as well. [blink] Holy cow - They DID squeeze “bear” in! sort of, minimally, at home - but the second law referenced prohibited “bearing” a licensed item from one room to another. Anyway...
SCOTUS won’t dig deep, focusing just on the home. Restrictions should be limited to preventing collateral damage to neighbors should the arms “go off” (addressing the grenades & nukes question), domestic violence & felons restrictions will likely stand, with most other restrictions curtailed by the “privacy of one’s home” principle.
An area to consider: getting something TO one’s home. You’ve gotta bear that thing at SOME point, if only to get it from the dealer to your nightstand - and as that is critical to “keeping” the item, “bearing” outside the home could come into play.
Gonna be interesting.
The crux of this issue is that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty (rights), or property, without due process of law.
A felon is denied life (in capital cases), liberty (freedom, while in jail, and other rights such as voting, choice of residence, and so on, upon release) and property (fines, forfeitures), WITH due process of law.
So it's arguable that denying felons the right to own firearms after their release is within the scope of the police power, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a lawsuit come up where a non-violent felon who has completed sentence, parole, and all other supervision sues for his right to armed self-defense.