Actual language (which I mention quite a bit): Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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. Heller at 54-5
Which has as a footnote (26):
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Better yet:
But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64
From McDonald:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40
The only thing off the table is anything that purports to be a ban. Which leads to my question: had Chicago theoretically allowed for registrations (as does New York City) since that is not an “absolute prohibition”– would the law have passed constitutional muster? After all, NYC’s law has been around for 99 years: doesn’t that count as a longstanding regulatory measure?
"After all, NYC’s law has been around for 99 years: doesn’t that count as a longstanding regulatory measure?"
A very good point Laci. Heller does allow restrictions short of an outright ban. And while Heller didn't address the right to bear arms outside of the home, it was cited in the case that resulted in the mandate to set up a carry permit system in Illinois. And you are correct, Illinois could have possibly set up their gun laws to produce the perfect storm in gun control. In my mind, that would be NYC's registration system and New Jersey's carry permit system. But they didn't, and in as firm a Democratic as you can find, they passed a shall issue permit system. It will be interesting to see what happens when the permits are actually issued out. But it seems apparent that in spite of a few bones thrown towards Chicago, the people opted for a fair permit system in which everyone knows the rules up front.
Limits against murdering innocent people make sense. Limits against discharging a firearm within a city, unless in self-defense or at a safe gun range, are good. But restrictions and bans that only burden law-abiding people are stupid and unconstitutional.
Actual language (which I mention quite a bit):
ReplyDeleteLike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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. Heller at 54-5
Which has as a footnote (26):
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Better yet:
But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64
From McDonald:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40
The only thing off the table is anything that purports to be a ban. Which leads to my question: had Chicago theoretically allowed for registrations (as does New York City) since that is not an “absolute prohibition”– would the law have passed constitutional muster? After all, NYC’s law has been around for 99 years: doesn’t that count as a longstanding regulatory measure?
"After all, NYC’s law has been around for 99 years: doesn’t that count as a longstanding regulatory measure?"
ReplyDeleteA very good point Laci. Heller does allow restrictions short of an outright ban. And while Heller didn't address the right to bear arms outside of the home, it was cited in the case that resulted in the mandate to set up a carry permit system in Illinois.
And you are correct, Illinois could have possibly set up their gun laws to produce the perfect storm in gun control. In my mind, that would be NYC's registration system and New Jersey's carry permit system.
But they didn't, and in as firm a Democratic as you can find, they passed a shall issue permit system. It will be interesting to see what happens when the permits are actually issued out. But it seems apparent that in spite of a few bones thrown towards Chicago, the people opted for a fair permit system in which everyone knows the rules up front.
Laci, in regards to strict gun registration laws, we'll have to keep an eye on Heller II and see what happens there.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/11/dick-heller-challenges-dcs-gun-registration-files-/
Heller I is already having a ripple effect in gun legislation as the new carry permit system in Illinois will show.
What about the recent ruling that led IL to institute a shall issue permit carry system?
ReplyDeleteSince it hasn't been treated as unlimited for the last hundred years, maybe it's time to move on from repeating this meme.
ReplyDeleteThis "meme" is being repeated in response to guys on your side of the aisle who object to any and all restrictions.
DeleteLimits against murdering innocent people make sense. Limits against discharging a firearm within a city, unless in self-defense or at a safe gun range, are good. But restrictions and bans that only burden law-abiding people are stupid and unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteWhat law abiding citizen has been denied a right to buy a gun?
Delete