@parados,
parados wrote:
Actually, Heller is the law of DC which is a special case since it is a Federally controlled area.
The only such area outside of a state.
There is still the issue of states rights and whether states
can control guns which is not resolved.
It coud be possible that u might gleen some insight
into the thought processes of the USSC concerning
curtailing any power of the States, by these snippets
from the
HELLER case:
Note that the Court cites, with approval,
to its precedent in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art
employed in select parts of the Constitution... .
[Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘
the people’ protected by the
Fourth Amendment, and by
the First and Second Amendments,
and to whom rights and powers are reserved
in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to
a class of persons who are part of a national community
or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection
with this country to be considered part of that community.”
. . .
"We start therefore with a strong presumption that
the Second Amendment right is exercised individually
and belongs to all Americans"
"The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that
it 'shall not be infringed.' "
Note that the Court cites, with approval,
to “judge and professor Thomas Cooley, who wrote
a massively popular 1868
Treatise on Constitutional
Limitations. Concerning the Second Amendment it said:
‘Among the other
defences to personal liberty
should be mentioned
the right of the people to keep
and bear arms. . . .
The USSC also cites to Judge Cooley for support of its decision,
in his
General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)
“The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is,
that
the people, from whom the militia must be taken,
shall have the right to keep and bear arms;
and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.”
[All emphasis was added by David.]
