Replies

"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"

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?

Since a misdemeanor is not a felony nor are the subjects in question mentally ill, I would concur.

I alno noticed than laws on Gun locks, gun safes ect are null and void since they make it impossible for citizens to use them for the corelawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

"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..."

I do believe this is a federal law, and also that there's nothing in Heller to use to challenge it.

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. 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.

I'm afraid that these phrases in the decision will be used to uphold laws against selling or possessing certain types of firearms. A judge can simply say that any firearm in question is not one "in common use at the time" and bingo, it is excluded from 2nd Amendment protection. I can see this part of the decision being used by unscrupulous anti-gun judges to allow the banning of almost any type gun that he or she claims is not a type in "common use at this time".

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

You're referring to the Lautenburg Act, which is a FEDERAL law that prohibits the possession of firearms by anyone who was ever convicted of a domestic violence crime. Hundreds, probably thousands, of policemen have been forced out of their jobs by this law, not to mention many thousands more men who are also unjustly prohibited due to plea bargained convictions. This decision could have been used to overturn that federal law if not for the section which I mentioned in a previous post to you.

I believe you’re referring to the Lautenberg Amendment (act):

The Lautenberg Amendment, or act is an act presented and made law in 1996 that amended the Gun Control act of 1968 by senate and the house of representatives commonly known as Section 658 0f Public Law 104-208. The Amendment is now law that persons convicted of even a misdemeanor crime of Domestic Violence, or that are the Respondant to a protective order whether temporary, or permenant, or a Restraining order may not possess firearms, or ammunitions. The Gun Control act also does not provide an exclusion for Military Personnel, Security Guards, Law Enforcement, or any other types of persons that are required by the duties of their professions to possess, carry or work with or around Firearms, Guns, Explosives, or any other types of munitions and other types of weaponry. The Act also makes it a felony for any person to provide another person with such Firearms, and ammunition or weaponry including Military Commanders, Non-Commissioned Officers, and other types of Professional Career type leadership officials such as Police Officers and also Security Guards and or National Guardsmen.We have made this website in the support of either repealing the amendment, or by amending the amendment to allow exclusions for persons whose careers have been adversely affected due to this law, as well as allow for the victims rights not to be violated in situations that may arise from the amendment, or repeal of the Lautenberg Amendment..