The Heller Victories
From my position, behind enemy lines in California, I see the Heller decision as a series of victories. Free state blogs and MSM may see it as not going far enough (they're right) but hopefully this lays to rest many Not Free state ass-hat assumptions I would be grateful to not ever hear again.
The second amendment means what it says. The explanatory clause "the militia" is linked to the command clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" logically. One does not cancel or oppose the other. The militia is the people, an individual is an individual. The second codifies and individual right to keep and bear arms, for militia or self defense purposes.
The second amendment codifies into law the individual right to keep and bear, working and readily available arms for self defense. Lock, load and carry.
Arms are weapons, weapons are guns. Guns are whatever is in common use at this time, not common use in 18th century time. This includes handguns specifically, and I interpret this to mean any current, common arm suitable for infantry type use. Mass destruction weapons (such as poison gas, modern artillery, biological and atomic) can be regulated and licensed. Similarly, commonly in use should include machine guns, although a license may be required.
Restrictive legislation is still permitted. If one is a felon, mentally ill or otherwise restricted you may be barred arms. Even if there is a licensing requirement you must be issued a license unless disqualified by being a felon or mentally ill.
You may keep and bear arms. Restrictions on concealed carry may be permissible, but bearing arms may not.
The next huge issue, in my mind, is whether or not the states must abide by the constitution. To me this is a no brainer (all territory under U.S. control is subject to the constitution) but the states must be brought to heel, or they can secede. In or out, but they must choose.
The second amendment means what it says. The explanatory clause "the militia" is linked to the command clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" logically. One does not cancel or oppose the other. The militia is the people, an individual is an individual. The second codifies and individual right to keep and bear arms, for militia or self defense purposes.
The second amendment codifies into law the individual right to keep and bear, working and readily available arms for self defense. Lock, load and carry.
Arms are weapons, weapons are guns. Guns are whatever is in common use at this time, not common use in 18th century time. This includes handguns specifically, and I interpret this to mean any current, common arm suitable for infantry type use. Mass destruction weapons (such as poison gas, modern artillery, biological and atomic) can be regulated and licensed. Similarly, commonly in use should include machine guns, although a license may be required.
Restrictive legislation is still permitted. If one is a felon, mentally ill or otherwise restricted you may be barred arms. Even if there is a licensing requirement you must be issued a license unless disqualified by being a felon or mentally ill.
You may keep and bear arms. Restrictions on concealed carry may be permissible, but bearing arms may not.
The next huge issue, in my mind, is whether or not the states must abide by the constitution. To me this is a no brainer (all territory under U.S. control is subject to the constitution) but the states must be brought to heel, or they can secede. In or out, but they must choose.
☮
5 Incoming!:
So I interpret the ruling on licensing to mean that all may issue states are now shall issue states. Of course I have a pretty simplistic view and believed that the 2nd amendment meant individual long before some guys in robes said so. That's just me I guess.
That is my interpretation also. Licensing means shall issue, individual means me, militia does not mean the state.
All obvious and now confirmed!
Let the lawsuits begin. They will be spending copious amounts of taxpayer dollars just to trying to figure out what the minimum level of 2nd amendmendment compliance is.
I dunno.
IIRC, only MA requires you to have a permit to own even a long arm.
That should be changed, but I don't see it happening.
Under the ruling, where they hinted at restrictions on the carriage of arms, it seems like "May Issue" might be okay.
Then again, I haven't read the ruling, so I could just be talking out of my as- hey hey!
Let's get some Freedom!! Yeh I know it will still take time.
Post a Comment