Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Clean_Sweep
Actually, Scalia, in his opinion in Heller, left open the means for precisely this kind of ban. I always wished that Thomas had written for the majority, I think it would have been a better decision.

"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." (emphasis mine)

38 posted on 04/06/2018 10:44:33 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: dirtboy

Nice of you to edit the wording and provisions that are protected. “Commonly in use” fire arms are protected. Which puts AR15’s squarely in the protected catsgory.

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


53 posted on 04/07/2018 3:16:11 PM PDT by Clean_Sweep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson