Well just finished reading enough of the decision to see that JD hit it on the head as usual .
Raise a toast to a victory but don't go getting to excited over it all .
With Presidential elections just around the corner don't forget what a fragile victory it was with a 5-4 decision .
The only comfort one can find is the fact that even with a Democratic victory in November and even perhaps a November 4 years away is the fact that the most frail of the Supremes "Ginsberg" that might need replacing by an antigun President has already come down against us leaving the present majority intact , at least for the foreseeable future .
The ***** in Heller is what defines a "Dangerous and unusual weapon" and "Those in common use for lawful purposes" ?
What makes a weapon "Unusual" ?
In the civilian world that can be defined as simple as a bayonet lug on a rifle or even a lanyard loop on a handgun .
Certainly a multicolored weapon with todays modern "Paint jobs" on them can be seen as unusual . Will all of the Yellow and Pink guns be banned on this basis ?
As far as "dangerous" goes it wouldn't be of much use for defense if it weren't dangerous now would it ?
I'm afraid all this decision has done is paved the way for hundreds of more lawsuits with each only slightly less fuzzy than the last .
Raise a toast to a victory but don't go getting to excited over it all .
With Presidential elections just around the corner don't forget what a fragile victory it was with a 5-4 decision .
The only comfort one can find is the fact that even with a Democratic victory in November and even perhaps a November 4 years away is the fact that the most frail of the Supremes "Ginsberg" that might need replacing by an antigun President has already come down against us leaving the present majority intact , at least for the foreseeable future .
The ***** in Heller is what defines a "Dangerous and unusual weapon" and "Those in common use for lawful purposes" ?
Do all semiautomatics get the protection of "in common use for a lawful purpose" , or just some ?(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
What makes a weapon "Unusual" ?
In the civilian world that can be defined as simple as a bayonet lug on a rifle or even a lanyard loop on a handgun .
Certainly a multicolored weapon with todays modern "Paint jobs" on them can be seen as unusual . Will all of the Yellow and Pink guns be banned on this basis ?
As far as "dangerous" goes it wouldn't be of much use for defense if it weren't dangerous now would it ?
I'm afraid all this decision has done is paved the way for hundreds of more lawsuits with each only slightly less fuzzy than the last .