The 2nd amendment was held but it is not unlimited. Thus there are limits that can be imposed.
“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. ”
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)
(The court ruled in Heller’s favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.) as he was a policeman
You guys are just pointing to the obvious yet the case concerned handguns. The problem is interpretation and reading the fine print. Individual right to keep and bear arms is valid with limitations. It what the state allows.
Scalia also goes on to say
“Like most rights,
the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” So yes as stated citizens can bear arms for service in the militia. As long as the rules are followed.
Yes they can use this to protect there home still the following was held to be valid
“Until the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (2001), every Court of Appeals to consider the question had understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes.” District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 576 n.2 (2008)
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008
Thus is has limitations.
So they can be banned under certain conditions.
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. 2816 – 2817.
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 571 (2008)
Thus, whereas Scalia’s majority opinion in
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) found that Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional because the original meaning of the text of the
Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms independent of service in a state militia, Justice
John Paul Stevens’s dissenting opinion relied on a similar historical analysis to draw exactly the opposite conclusion.
Scalia did not deny the validity of such critiques, but he argued that his approach was nevertheless superior to any other method at reducing inappropriate influences on judges’ decisions.
The only thing that he confirms is the militia clause in the 2nd. The government can regulate.
thus it is still unlawful to care an unregistered gun for example.
“Until the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (2001), every Court of Appeals to consider the question had understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes. ” District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 576 n.2 (2008)
AR 15 arguments
Illinois residents cannot purchase an AR 15 or assault weapon beginning January 11, 2023 unless subject to one of the narrow exemptions listed in section 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(e) within the link above.
so there are exemptions and there is a law.
Under a law passed on January 10, 2023, Illinois has defined certain firearms as assault weapons. It is illegal to manufacture, deliver, sell, or purchase an assault weapon. Any assault weapons that are already owned by residents are legal to possess if registered with the state police by January 1, 2024.
They regulate and what was okay before now has been limited to what is already own.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling years ago
Now I do not know what other states have done but this is an issues that is waiting for the next mass shooting event.
Assault weapons have been linked to some of the deadliest mass shootings in the the U.S in the past decade.
www.axios.com
10 states have already banned it. It does appear that those who have the weapon are grandfather in.
Biden wants to ban them and I guess that is making some upset. All well, get them while you can. They are quite expensive but hey if you got the cash.
