OK, dealing with that article, starting with the headline.
The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns
Sort of a nonsense saying there. What does "unlimited right" even mean?
I was stunned to find that the decision is hardly the blanket protection for gun ownership that the National Rifle Association and adamant gun rights people claim.
Actually it is everything that we claim it is.
Nor is it the sweeping defeat that those who want gun control lament.
The gun control movement is all about violating our rights. This ruling prevents them from doing that. Sounds like a defeat to me.
There is no question that District of Columbia v. Heller was precisely the sort of judicial activism the conservative justices of the Supreme Court promised not to do.
Upholding Constitutional rights is not in any way judicial activism.
ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self-defense, despite the amendment’s opening language - “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ” - which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically preserved by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense against a tyrannical government (remember, this was the issue on their minds back then).
So many errors.
First, the Second Amendment does not "give" a right. Rather, it protects a pre-existing right.
Second, the Framers did not intend that the militia be used against a tyrannical government. They intended the militia to be used by
a non-tyrannical government.
Third, the Constitution protects all rights that existed in English Common Law, and that includes the right to carry a gun for self defense when you go about in public.
Fourth, the first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that the government always keep a militia on hand, so that a militia is always available when the government needs to enforce the law.
On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or 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 also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”
That language refers to many of the gun control ideas being discussed now. Prohibitions on carrying ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ certainly might apply to assault rifles.
Not even close. There is nothing about a pistol grip on a rifle that makes it a dangerous or unusual weapon.
Ammunition clips that hold 100 bullets…30…even 10, are hardly ‘usual’, certainly not for self-defense, or hunting.
This is completely untrue.
Magazines with 10 or more rounds are extremely common in self defense. And 30 round magazines are well within the norm for self defense.
As far as hunting goes, it depends on the game. Varmint hunters are known to use 30 round magazines.
“..conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” might include requiring that everybody who wants to own a gun has to get a permit, and have a background check,
It will not, however, allow the gun control movement to bar people from buying guns without a good reason as to why they should be prevented from having a gun.
Thus the gun control movement is thwarted on one of their major goals.
“…laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” That certainly seems to challenge the NRA’s idea that more guns in schools is a good idea.
That says nothing about whether more guns in schools is or is not a good idea.
And perhaps most striking, the majority ruling in Heller specifically leaves open the question of whether the public has a right to carry “concealed weapons”, a bedrock claim of gun rights advocates.
The Constitution protects our right to carry a gun when we go about in public.
The Constitution does not specify a right to carry openly or concealed. Therefore there is no violation if the government should choose one or the other.