Quote: -deterring tyrannical government;
-repelling invasion;
-suppressing insurrection;
-facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
-participating in law enforcement;
-enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Quote: (1) 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , 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.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

(07-22-2012, 08:30 PM)BlackDog Wrote: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun - Mao Zedong

I never did get why a man can own a military grade .50 sniper rifle, with armor pierceing rounds down there.

Just seems like your asking for trouble putting that kind of weaponry into the hands normal people

(07-24-2012, 01:07 AM)RockHunter Wrote: Snip

(07-24-2012, 02:00 PM)Dylan Wrote:

(07-24-2012, 01:07 AM)RockHunter Wrote: Snip

I love it when people use Mexico as a demonstration of how "herp gun laws dont help, herp", it's like using the Soviet Union or Cuba as examples of how Communism always fails. Newsflash: Mexico isn't exactly a pure country, in case you didn't know, people are poor there, and cops are prone to taking bribes.

(07-24-2012, 02:00 PM)Dylan Wrote: That is something you should consider before going "Mexico's gun law is shit herherher", yes, their gun law doesn't affect very much, but neither does their drug law or any other law for that matter.

(07-24-2012, 02:00 PM)Dylan Wrote: USA has a bigger homicide rate than the UK does, derp. And in fact, a bigger homicide rate than most of the european countries. Only countries that have a higher homicide rate than the USA are countries that have severe problems (poverty for example). Funny, how USA is head-to-head with the worst offenders out there, even Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

(07-24-2012, 02:35 PM)RockHunter Wrote: Snip

(07-24-2012, 09:17 PM)Joey Skylynx Wrote: Snip