|
Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 11:56 PM EST |
I think you mean District of Columbia v. Heller
(2008) and the
subsequent extension in McDonald v.
Chicago (2010).
The US Supreme Court
in these cases finally settled an issue
that it had been avoiding for two
hundred years, holding
that the
right to bear arms adheres in individuals and not in
(for example) state-sponsored militia.
But the same decisions also uphold
the regulatory function
of state and local governments in connection with gun
ownership. Writing for the majority in McDonald,
Justice Alito
says:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller,
while striking
down a law that prohibited the possession of
handguns in the home, recognized
that the right to keep and
bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any
weapon
whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose.” ... We
made it clear in Heller that our holding
did not cast doubt on such
longstanding regulatory
measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms
by
felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying
of firearms in
sensitive places such as schools and
government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” ... We
repeat
those assurances here. Despite municipal
respondents’ doomsday proclamations,
incorporation does not
imperil every law regulating firearms. [citations
omitted]
--- Recursion is the opprobrium of the
mathists. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 09:56 AM EST |
Check the 1792 Militia Act, passed the year after the 1791 Second Amendment
It states quite clearly what arms were intended, and under what conditions.
Anyone who says "we don't know what the writers of the 2nd Amendment
intended" right up to your Supreme Court, are wrong, and, in judging that
they were not linked, showed their contempt for the Constitution[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|