Posted on 06/22/2015 2:05:07 PM PDT by reaganaut1
In 2008, the Supreme Court issued its momentous decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Until then, the meaning of the Second Amendment had been cloudy for many years. Gun control partisans argued that all it did was to protect a “collective” right to keep and bear arms (militia, the police) but not any right for individuals to do so.
Thus, state and local gun controls laws, no matter how strict, were constitutional.
Advocates for the right of individual ownership argued that the Second Amendment didn’t make sense under that reading. Sheldon Richman, for one, made that case here.
In Heller, a resident of the District of Columbia (Dick Heller) contended that the District’s law that prevented him from having a handgun in his home for self-protection violated his rights under the Second Amendment. (Strangely enough, Heller was paid to provide armed security at the Thurgood Marshall Center during the day, but was prevented from having a weapon at the ready in case he needed to defend himself at night.)
Did he have any rights, though? In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that he did.
The Court held that the District’s prohibition against handguns and its law that any other gun must either be kept disassembled or with a trigger lock violated Heller’s constitutional rights to keep firearms for self-defense.
A key element in Heller was the dispute over trigger locks. Was it a reasonable regulation to mandate them?
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
A very thoughtful article! Bravo!!
My right to a gun comes from God not the Supreme Court or the Constitution.
To expect government alone to protect our rights is giving it the power to violate them.
When Heller was written and it included “reasonable restrictions” I knew it meant nothing.
Once liberals whittle away, you will be allowed a firearm for self defense....a single shot, unloaded and locked away and only in one registered room of your home.
“Until then, the meaning of the Second Amendment had been cloudy for many years.”
Cloudy? Well maybe for absolute fools, fascists,
and people who can’t, don’t or wont understand
the english language. The purpose of the second
amendment is to keep the government in check
and for duty in the militia to protect our borders.
A good argument could be made that this pertains to military
arms exclusively. However sporting arms and small caliber
hand guns could be regulated as nonmilitary. And remember
the definition of arms is anything one man can carry.
That’s why they used the word “arms” in the second amendment.
The author should read the two cases.
In Heller, the court struck down provisions that required the gun to be fitted with a trigger lock or disassembled.
In the San Francisco case, the gun did not have to have a trigger lock or be disassembled if it was in the possession of the owner.
There is a significant difference between the two cases.
I don’t, I count on retrieving my collection from the bottom of the lake to defend my rights.
Nor for defending property rights!!
http://www.startribune.com/high-court-strikes-down-raisin-program-as-unconstitutional/309030481/
OMG!!! Gov’t confiscates RAISINS from farmers. So much for property rights.
And the “wise Latina” fascist (Sotomeyer) states in her embarassing (8-1) dissent that it is not violating property rights, but rather limiting the income they can make. Such shallow thinking for a self-declared “wise latina.”
She doesn’t understand that having grown the raisins, they are the farmers PROPERTY. To her, raisins are not property, they are “income.” What an idiot.
The 2nd Amendment to the Federal Constitution says nothing about states, nor would you expect to it being a part of the Federal Constitution.
The Federal injustices were wrong to incorporate it just they they were wrong to incorporate every other amendment against our states. The Federal Constitution defines a Federal Government which is suppose to be an entirely separate and distinct kind of government than the State Government.
If the people want to protect their right from their state Government they already have and uses State Constitution’s for that propose.
Every thing the Federal court adds to the Federal Constitution not only abolishes rule of law by legislating from the bench it in effect robs the people of their solvergin right to govern themselves.
Furthermore domestic feature taht is added by anyone to the Federal Constitution broaden that issue to the national rather than state & local debate robing them people of not only their right to vote with their ballot locally but also their individual right to vote with their feet. Thus repressing the right of the minority.
In the end nobody wins as a result of incorporation even on issues we might agree with, you lose because no longer is there a place where those who strongly disagree may learn the error of their way. Instead freedom and experimentation is shutdown just like the vote.
When cases go to be looked at by the Supreme Court...
It IS ALL about how the “question” is presented to that bench...
Time and time again we have been getting lucky with some of these cases...
I believe one day someone is going to be able to present something to that court we are not going to like, and we may have a real problem...
And still, that won’t change anything as far as I am concerned...
I hate Roberts more and more over time.
In practice there is no difference between a trigger lock and locking the entire gun in a box. In either case, Heller said that the gun would not be available for use when needed. The cases are not in the least different. They are identical. Just the puke SCOTUS let the Ninth Circus hijack the law.
Whatever. America is screwed.
“In practice there is no difference between a trigger lock and locking the entire gun in a box.”
Absolutely correct. However, you should read the opinion. In DC, the gun had to be disassembled or locked. In either case, it was not readily available for defensive use. In this case, the gun could be disassembled, locked, or in the possession of the owner. The court found that “being in the possession of the owner” did not make the gun unavailable for defensive use. So there is a difference between the cases.
Now, I agree with you that the court should not have ruled as it did. But, that is not the same thing as saying there was no differences in the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.