To: Erik Latranyi
And the 9th said it is not overbroad because it does not restrict firearms in the home.
No, they didn't. Produce a quotation from the opinion that says that the 2A can only apply in the home. They said that Heller said the need for 2A protection was especially acute in the home, but they twice indicated that it was the "efficacy of self defense" that was a 2A issue.
Next, the Court connected the statutes operation to the conduct the Second Amendment protects: the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. Id. It was thus the statutes burdens on effective self-defense that implicated the Second Amendment.
They go on to cite the particulars of the Heller case, which involved firearms in the home, but the fact that Heller made the possession of firearms in the home a 2A protected right does not mean that the right can only exist in the home, and I did not see where the 9th said any such thing.
To: publiusF27
They said that Heller said the need for 2A protection was especially acute in the home, but they twice indicated that it was the "efficacy of self defense" that was a 2A issue. And what is stopping liberal court to rule that the home will be the only place not considered "sensitive"?
The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
But what did DC do? They disallowed Heller's semi-automatic handgun and said they would only allow revolvers to be posessed in the home.
You have to understand how liberals will twist this or complacency on our side will result in a gutted 2A.
10 posted on
04/26/2009 7:25:29 AM PDT by
Erik Latranyi
(Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson