What are "reasonable regulations" under the Second Amendment?

Let's start with the holding from DC v. Heller:

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

We hold--this is the holding.  That means this is the only part of the decision with actual legal value as a precedent.  Of course, Scalia doesn't give a fuck about precedent--even if he wrote the opinion!


Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights:this sounds like a background check, and a pretty extensive one at that.

 to register his handgun and must issue him a license--that's pretty clear language.

Well, maybe to everyone but a gun loon.

In other words, SCOTUS says that registration, licensing, and background checks DO NOT violate the Second Amendment.

No where in this holding are the words "individual right" mentioned.  It may be bantered about all through the dicta, but one learns that dicta has zip value for precedent sometime in the first week of law school.

Why?

Because that is how the court explains its thought processes in reaching the holding.

But, we are going to go to the dicta for other guidance as to what "reasonable regulation" might mean, especially since Heller made it pretty clear that the newly created right was severely limited (see holding above):

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.

Which has as a footnote (26):

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

McDonald v.Chicago was similarly reassuring:

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.

In fact, looking at these decisions,  the current state of the District of Columbia's gun laws, and some other strict gun laws that are still standing: there is no reason for a legislator who claims to support the Second Amendment to NOT support background checks and registration.  Nothing in either Heller or McDonald prevents the adoption of reasonable laws to reduce gun violence.

After all, the Heller and McDonald decisions both held these measures do not violate the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.  Additionally, most Second Amendment challenges to gun laws have proven to be failures.  The Second Amendment has been a pretty poor defence to gun laws in the past, and will probably continue to remain that way.

Of course, we could get into the Constitutionality of a court reviewing of legislative acts...

See also:

• The facts about gun control and universal background checks | New Republic
• Gun Ownership Rights Under Heller | Nolo.com
• The Second Amendment Battleground: Victories in the Courts and Why They Matter
• Despite 2nd Amendment Cases, Firearms Codes Are Moving Targets
• Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence – Post-Heller Litigation Summary

Simple question

The problem with the gun control, or whatever the fuck you want to call the act of regulating firearms, has become so bogged down in bullshit.

But, it really boils down to a simple question:
Do you want people who will misuse firearms to have access to them?

This is a simple yes or no question without room for hemming and hawing about "how good guns are" blahblahblahblahblah

Do you want a criminal to have access to a firearm?
Do you want someone who will use the gun for an illegal act (murder, robbery, etc.) to have access to a firearm?

Yes or no?

No shades of grey that "this inconveniences law abiding citizens" because law abiding citizens are even more inconvenienced when disqualified persons have access to a firearm.

And there is no "right" for disqualified persons to have a gun unless you are on the side that people who will misuse them should have access to them and let society be damned.

Someone said that people on the gun rights side are intelligent.  Maybe they are.  But, intelligence is different from ignorance as I often point out.  In fact, they are so intelligent that they can argue that black is white.

That is why this is a simple yes or no question: not an essay question.  I don't want to hear how society benefits from people who shouldn't have guns having them.

If deep in your heart you answered "yes", then you are for gun control: whether you believe in it or not.

This is a major point that a lot of responsible gun owners and firearm reform advocates should be able to agree on. Some of the more militant of the so-called "gun rights" activists completely fail to see (or acknowledge) that one of the issues can be boiled down to "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." There is no rational argument against this simple concept:  don't let the bad guy have a gun in the first place.