Man, they're quoting the Emerson decision on page 69. What a scathing reversal.
I would like to find and slap the Freepers who said that the Emerson decision was actually bad news for RKBA.
Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a “well regulated Militia.” The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia. Cf. D.C. Code § 49-401 (excluding “idiots, lunatics, common drunkards, vagabonds, paupers, and persons convicted of any infamous crime” from militia duty). On the other hand, it does not follow that a person who is unsuitable for militia service has no right to keep and bear arms. A physically disabled person, for instance, might not be able to participate in even the most rudimentary organized militia. But this person would still have the right to keep and bear arms, just as men over the age of forty-five and women would have that right, even though our nation has traditionally excluded them from membership in the militia.
I would like to find and slap the Freepers who said that the Emerson decision was actually bad news for RKBA.We build things one step at a time.
This decision doesn't say that states can't ban guns. Whether the 2nd is incorporated and restricts states is still undecided.
It doesn't say that the federal government can't impose registration and/or licensing. That also is still up in the air.
But it does say that the federal government can't ban guns.
Which is the most minimal finding possible, other than the minor little detail of establishing that it is an individual right.
All rights are subject to regulation, to some degree. We will continue to argue about what regulations are reasonable and proper. But if this ruling is upheld by SCOTUS, we will have permanently removed the gun-banners' dream of disarming society.
They quoted Miller, too -- but, unlike pretty much every other citation I've every seen on that case, they got it right! They actually understood what that court said! The Miller decision was strongly pro-2nd, yet, it's been perveted over the years into something that allegedly endorses a position 180 degrees opposed to what it said.
WRT to things like "Assault Weapons", if Miller were to be the yardstick, the ONLY firearms that would be protected private ownership via the 2nd would be things like "Assault Weapons"! The sole criteria addressed by Miller was, "Is this firearm suitable for use by the military? If so, then a civilian's right to own it may not be infringed!"
It's truly Orwellian that the antis have managed to pervert Miller into a tool used for the exact opposite of what it actually says.
And it's truly amazing that this court was sufficiently ballsy to say what it said.
I see only two possible scenarios.
One, they are serious about restoring the 2nd to its actual purpose, or, two, they know it's a lost cause, so, "what the hell", might as well tell the truth, since it won't matter in the long run.
I guess we'll find out before too long whether or not the fix is in.