The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The Court found the gun ownership need not be directly connected with use in a militia, but did not question the previous ruling of United States v. Miller, which found that government has the right to regulate the use of certain weapons, such as sawed-off shotguns, Justice Scalia remarking in the majority opinion for Heller that the Miller decision meant "only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." It is also important to note that the decision did not overturn any other restrictions, such as prohibitions on concealed weapons.
Considering the ever-growing brutality of the police state (see here and here, for example), I enthusiastically welcome this decision (granted that I would like it to go even further). It's about time that government stop oppressing poor people and let the people police themselves.
[By the way, I realize that I'm a little late with this post. I just wanted to give my two cents!]
3 comments:
Just the other day I was zooming around and saw a gigantic sign in front of a business: "This Is a Weapons Free Zone." ROFLMAO. If that isn't an invitation for criminals, I don't know what is.
We disagree on economic matters, but good post. Leaving guns in the hands of cops and soldiers is a laughable way to defend freedom.
A gun-free zone is gun-free until a criminal comes in. Then it becomes a massacre zone.
Indeed! It's no surprise that Washington, D.C.'s murder rate grew after handguns were banned.
Post a Comment