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.
It applies to Individuals. It protects their RKBA no matter where in the US they are, even the District of Columbia. No Federal, or mere State law, may infringe on this Right as per the Constitution.
Keep spinning Bobby. It's what you do worst...
If they affirmed the *individual* right to keep and bear arms, how will this impact:
1.) Restrictions on the number of purchases that can be made in a certain time period.
2.) Restriction on which citizens may or may not keep arms
3.) Restriction on which types of firearms may be owned.
4.) Rrstrictions on how/when purchases may be made.
Any of these restrictions can be viewed as "infringement" and I am interested to see how this ruling will impact. With the constructionist Supreme Court that we now have in place, i hope that this is heard and affirmed. And then I want to see them review the 100 years of unconstituitional gun laws that are currently on the books through this new lens.
Correct. That's what they said.
"It protects their RKBA no matter where in the US they are, even the District of Columbia."
Correct.
No Federal, or mere State law, may infringe on this Right as per the Constitution."
Oops. Where did they say that? They said the District of Columbia's law infringed on an individual right, yes. They said the second amendment applied to the District of Columbia, yes.
But that's about it. I didn't see anything about state laws in there. Point that out for me.
“It applies to Individuals. It protects their RKBA no matter where in the US they are, even the District of Columbia. No Federal, or mere State law, may infringe on this Right as per the Constitution.”
I wish your statement were correct; but unfortunately it’s not given two aspects of law.
One, the US is divided into 13 Courts of Appeals, meaning that all Federal cases start in a local District court. The direct appeal is to one of the 13 Courts of Appeals. Decisions in one Court of Appeals are not binding in others.
Two, during the 1800s, Constitutional cases held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government and not to the States. During the 1900s, a series of US Supreme Court cases interpreted the 14th Amendment to stay that certain of the Bill of Rights did apply to the States—this process is called “incorporation of the Bill of Rights.” Many argue that by today all of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated, but we have no Supreme Court case that has said so, and the question as to whether the Second Amendment has been incorporated is still open.
The Parker case dealt with local law in DC, but prior cases have held that all local law in DC is Federal law because DC is authorized by Congress—it’s not a State. That’s why the incorporation question was not answered in Parker, meaning that Parker does not provide law for either incorporation or not incorporation of the Second Amendment.