Couple exerpts. One thing worrying me is that the way they said it MIGHT leave the door wide open for another “assault weapons” ban.
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity
The last one worries me. For one thing, it basically states that any challenge of the National Firearms Act is dead on arrival.
For another, it seems like this could leave the door wide open for another “assault weapons” ban.
HOWEVER…there were quotes saying that weapons that are not in common usage can be regulated or are not protected, i.e., machine guns.
The AR-15 is the most common rifle in America now. Using that test, they’re going to have a hard time restricting such rifles.
Our fight is NOT over, not by a damn sight, and not by a long shot. All the same we won a historic victory today.
Celebrate, but then get on with it. Our work has just begun.
This came in about fifteen minutes after they handed down the decision:
“The Illinois State Rifle Association, together with Second Amendment Foundation and several individual plaintiffs, filed suit against the City of Chicago in federal court this morning at 9:15 CDT. More information will be made available in a statement from the attorneys tomorrow.”
Expect to see it followed by many, many more.
NC is right- our work has just begun…
As I have posted other places, here is my quick look at it. Both the good and the bad. still reading.
I am reading it over now, heard about it on scotusblog.com(iirc) live, and it sounds like a step in the right direction but it still allows way too many limits on what is a right, not a privilege.
My quick notes, still working on this, will update later (read when done reading the damn thing and have better comprehension of it all.)
Upheld the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.
States that the prefatory clause doe not limit the operative clause of the 2a.
Finlay defines militia as all males capable of physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
And Total bans are a bad thing, possibly cause for challenging the bans in places like New York NY, and Chicago IL, and San Francisco CA. This total ban might also give because for challenging the 86 law, and the steel core ammo import ban, could also be a cause for readdress of the 68 GCA, or the 34 NFA. All good things.
Now the bad. (Insert sad panda face here)
2a is a limited right.
Upheld Miller as ok to limit access to weapons not “in common use at the time”, but see above the 34 NFA made the fire arms not ‘in common use at the time’ then and now, so this might be ok to limit non common use, but if the NFA made them non-common use could that be seen as an infringement, would most likely need a case just to prove this. Also this upholding of Miller just about guaranties that they can not pass another ‘assault weapon ban’ and that’s a very good thing.
Licenses are ok, but you don’t need a license for a right. This is bad because if you need a license then you have it revoked, or not issues in the first place sort a like they do for CCW in CA.
Permits are ok, but you don’t need a permit for a right. See above.
Registration is ok, but you don’t have a registration for a right. See above, and keep in mind that if there is a registration then it is easy to confiscate them after a ban.
And finally the big one, the 2nd amendment might only apply in the house. If this is true, does it mean that we no longer have a right of self defense outside of the house?
It is a start. We now have a damn good foot hold, we must keep traction and press on. Now that we’ve recovered from our celebratory revelry, it’s time to push and brace, push and brace. It’s a big stone to roll up hill, and if we don’t keep pressing on that thing will roll right back down. But it’s a damn good start.