From Page 54. This is where the issue of future machine gun and “Assault Weapon” bans will be resolved (my comments in parens, cites omitted for readbility):
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. …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. … 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
arms.26
26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only
as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
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.” … We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.” (So, are machine guns that are rare only because of an essential ban “dangerous and unusual” enough to justify the ban that makes them rare?)
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. (As many would show up today for militia service with an AR-15 – or better – any state AWB would seem to be unconstitutional)
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. (Like RPGs. What is he saying? That these - and machine guns – are protected?)
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. (Is he saying that because “modern developments” include public acceptance of a machine gun ban, the ban is justified, or is he saying that the principle of the 2nd amendment must be upheld regardless of whether it means we must accept certain weapons?)
In a number of states, legislatures have passed laws barring t he possession of firearms by men (mostly) who have been convicted of even the slightest form of domestic violence (misdemeanors; and no use of a fire arm); many because of plea bargains when there was actually no violation because of the threat of a year in prison.
It appears to me that this ruling could be used to toss out those provisions, which I think are just a socialist attempt to take guns out of the hands of some citizens.>
What do you think?
Good questions - dunno.
My reading says the latter.
Digging through it - that is ambiguous as all get out.