Doer
Well-Known Member
A lot of people talk about it. Someone said here recently that it meant the the 2nd A was what ever SCOTUS said it was...like that is a bad thing. Like it is a step backward instead of a balanced system of legal oversight.
It actually defines what some of us are talking about, it is the common military personal arms that is exactly what the 2nd is about.
--------
The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service M16 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 Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."[SUP][46][/SUP]
-------
This is what got the big media play....
------
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
-------
Much more pivotal I think is including, in the opinion, common defense with military weapons.
OH NO!!!!!!!!!
Good read....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
And for wiki, if you have any doubts, follow the audit trail of changes. Very enlightening sometimes.
It actually defines what some of us are talking about, it is the common military personal arms that is exactly what the 2nd is about.
--------
The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service M16 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 Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."[SUP][46][/SUP]
-------
This is what got the big media play....
------
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
-------
Much more pivotal I think is including, in the opinion, common defense with military weapons.
OH NO!!!!!!!!!
Good read....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
And for wiki, if you have any doubts, follow the audit trail of changes. Very enlightening sometimes.
