[Domandred]

How is this ruling going to effect any process on HR1022 and other federal level legislation? That's what I want to know.

I didn't read the decision but if it ends up being something cannot ban a class of guns but can still ban specific firearms then that doesn't help at all really. Legislation will just come out naming each individual firearm to be banned.

[Dead Corpse]

pg 46

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I didn't read the decision but if it ends up being something cannot ban a class of guns but can still ban specific firearms then that doesn't help at all really.

---

The ruling addressed and disposed of the DC position that a pistol ban doesn't ban all arms. The ruling said that if you are banning a type of "arms", it is not acceptable, even if people have other options (like sabers, in the opinion's example.)

Pretty solid.

I'll reread it again to see how an AWB might be treated.

The ruling is quite tolerant of restrictions on concealed carry, on felons, and such, but not on gun types.

[ctdonath2]

One problem with 1022 is that it bans parts. Could be interpreted as "you can have X, but you can't have any of the parts needed to build X."

[El Gato]

How is this ruling going to effect any process on HR1022 and other federal level legislation?

Thats a good question. If the Supreme Court were to uphold this ruling, then 1022 would likely be declared unconstitutional by any federal court which heard a challenge to it, which won't stop the DemonRats from passing it of course.

But as long as the decision only applies to the DC circuit, then a challenge to the law would probably be made there, but would that mean that the law was only null and void there? I would think so, since that is the case in other circuits where federal laws have been declared unconstitutional, but where the Supreme Court has neither upheld nor reversed those rulings.