Little-Acorn
06-30-2008, 11:09 AM
In his angry protest of the Supreme Court's recent decision finding the DC gun ban unconstitutional, Mayor Bloomberg of NYC said:
"...the court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual's
right to bear arms, while also affirming the constitutionality of
reasonable restrictions...."
It's that last part that many people seem to be getting wrong, about "reasonable restrictions".
The Heller ruling did NOT affirm the constitutionality of "reasonable restrictions". It merely declined to rule on them. Meaning, it neither approved nor disapproved.
What it did do, was declare that the first part of the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,") had no effect on the command part ("the RPKBA shall not be infringed."). The first part neither expanded nor restricted that later command. And without expansion or restriction, that command is pretty absolute.
The Supremes left THAT as their (oblique) comment on "restrictions". And they left the question of which restrictions were "reasonable", for future cases in that light.
It's going to be an interesting next few years in the courts as case after case is brought to explore this issue, now that the Heller case is decided the way it was.
"...the court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual's
right to bear arms, while also affirming the constitutionality of
reasonable restrictions...."
It's that last part that many people seem to be getting wrong, about "reasonable restrictions".
The Heller ruling did NOT affirm the constitutionality of "reasonable restrictions". It merely declined to rule on them. Meaning, it neither approved nor disapproved.
What it did do, was declare that the first part of the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,") had no effect on the command part ("the RPKBA shall not be infringed."). The first part neither expanded nor restricted that later command. And without expansion or restriction, that command is pretty absolute.
The Supremes left THAT as their (oblique) comment on "restrictions". And they left the question of which restrictions were "reasonable", for future cases in that light.
It's going to be an interesting next few years in the courts as case after case is brought to explore this issue, now that the Heller case is decided the way it was.