Thank you cboldt! Very helpful.I’m going to read on that Heller case.
“h” is such a disgrace. I don’t know what else to say.
I’m not down, however, not by a long shot!!
DC made it illegal for a person to own a handgun. Heller sued, claiming that law was unconstitutional, contrary to the 2nd amendment.
Before the Heller case, the prevailing "legal wisdom" was that the right to keep and bear arm (RKBA) was a collective right, possessed by the government, not by the people. if a person wants a gun, join the armed forces or national guard.
The Heller case reversed that "legal wisdom," which, by the way, existed for decades because the federal appellate courts lied about what the Presser case (1886) says, and SCOTUS let the lie stand for decades.
After Heller, it is unconstitutional to ban the possession (in the home) of any firearm that the court considers "in common use."
I have a serious issue with the Heller case though. Scalia's logic is that if an unconstitutional ban stays in place long enough, like the ban on automatic weapons, then it becomes constitutional because a banned weapon cannot become "in common use." SCOTUS facilitates unconstitutional bans by allowing the appellate courts to do the dirty work (see Presser lies to allow state bans to stand, for decades), and just refuse to take the cases.
The federal courts are openly hostile to the RKBA (and the rule of law attached to that right), as far as I am concerned