Heller vs. D.C.
Today, the United States Supreme Court decided (5-4) that there is an individual right to bear arms and that the Washington D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional. Now, before you go out and place your order for an M1 Abrams (or cower in fear expecting random gunfire), you might want to read the decision.
- The majority opinion stated that reasonable restrictions are constitutional. These restrictions include background checks. It also includes limits on what weapons can be owned. However, it was hinted at that the court might be willing to revisit the Miller decision. This could mean changes in what is allowable to civilians.
- The decision is not incorporated. This means that it does not directly affect any state or local laws. This is the reason that the Illinois State Rifle Association sued Chicago 15 minutes later.
- The wording of the decision may have put a hold on any new “assault” weapons bans. It stated that weapons in common usage are covered by the second amendment. Right now, the best selling style of rifle in the USA is the AR15.
For the supporters of individual right to firearm ownership, this the time to push for the repeal of as many of the idiotic bans and restrictions as we can. It also means we must think closely about our vote for President this year. The decision was a very close one. All it would have taken is one justice voting against our liberties, and we can not afford that in the future.
Just incase someone is wondering what I think would be reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, here they are:
- Violent felons, those adjudicated to be currently dangerous to themselves and others due to mental problems, and those with restraining orders placed against them would not be allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.
- Full auto and silenced weapons would be legal and untaxed. They are currently under a heavy federal tax and some states ban them.