decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The right to bear arms adheres in individuals | 337 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The right to bear arms adheres in individuals
Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 11:56 PM EST

I think you mean District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and the subsequent extension in McDonald v. Chicago (2010). The US Supreme Court in these cases finally settled an issue that it had been avoiding for two hundred years, holding that the right to bear arms adheres in individuals and not in (for example) state-sponsored militia.

But the same decisions also uphold the regulatory function of state and local governments in connection with gun ownership. Writing for the majority in McDonald, Justice Alito says:

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.” ... 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.” ... We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. [citations omitted]

---
Recursion is the opprobrium of the mathists.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

RThe terms of a "well-regulateed militia" are clearly stated
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 09:56 AM EST
Check the 1792 Militia Act, passed the year after the 1791 Second Amendment

It states quite clearly what arms were intended, and under what conditions.

Anyone who says "we don't know what the writers of the 2nd Amendment
intended" right up to your Supreme Court, are wrong, and, in judging that
they were not linked, showed their contempt for the Constitution

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )