Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

benEzra

(12,148 posts)
8. True, just as the 1stA doesn't cover all speech everywhere.
Tue Apr 19, 2016, 08:48 PM
Apr 2016

However, Heller did specifically state that the 2ndA protects guns that are commonly owned for lawful purposes, specifically mentioning handguns as the exemplar. Less-misused, equally common guns (like Title 1 rifles and shotguns) would logically fall under that protection as well, though it was D.C.'s handgun ban that was the occasion for Heller's suit and the ruling.

Heller did uphold the existing restrictions on "dangerous and unusual" weapons, specifically naming tightly controlled Title 2 weapons as the exemplar of that category. So it is pretty clear that the court intended to preserve the de facto consensus that we have had for decades; non-automatics own-able by mentally competent adults with clean records, self-defense specifically protected, howitzers/explosives/machineguns more tightly controlled.

There is absolutely no way whatsoever that a ban (de facto or literal) on handgun ownership by mentally competent adults with clean records can be squared with the Heller ruling, since Heller (and McDonald) were specifically *about* handgun bans, and D.C.'s was struck down.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Administration defends ne...»Reply #8