[faloi]

What's wrong with criminalizing possession of an object? We do that all the time. Counterfeit money, for example. The theory being that these items may make their way into the public.

There are some major difference between criminalizing possession of some items, like drugs and counterfeit money, and criminalizing possession of firearms. The chief difference is that "the right to bear arms" is specifically in the Constitution. Unless an Amendment made it in when I wasn't looking, there is no Constitutional protection for possession of counterfeit money.

I appreciate the "states rights" viewpoint in allowing the citizens to decide the issue, but the US Constitution is the trump card, as I understand law.

[vincentfreeman]

"I appreciate the "states rights" viewpoint in allowing the citizens to decide the issue, but the US Constitution is the trump card, as I understand law."

You are correct.

But the courts have ruled that the second amendment only applies to federal laws, not state laws. If Mr. Heller resided in Chicago and claimed second amendment protection, the courts would have thrown it out.

Since he is a Washington, DC resident, however, we are talking about federal law and the second amendment.

"The chief difference is that "the right to bear arms" is specifically in the Constitution."

Yes, and so is the right to free speech. Yet some speech is federally regulated even though the first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law ...". The question to the court is if some weapons can be regulated.