09-20-2017, 03:00 PM
(09-20-2017, 02:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The reality is that no one, outside of criminals and the mentally unwell, was being prevented from owning firearms prior to Heller. It was a matter of what types of firearms could be restricted and what regulations could be put on firearms.
The opinion decided that there a ban on handguns was unconstitutional, but it also went further and stated that the requirement that all shotguns and rifles in DC had to be unloaded and equipped with a trigger lock was unconstitutional, stating that the protection was for your individual right to own the weapon for self defense not the right to be armed if called upon to act in a militia.
While I agree with the idea that in 2017 militias are irrelevant and that this should be read now as an individual's right, I think the majority opinion's historical defense pales in comparison to the minority opinion's historical argument. It came down to politics, with shaky historical arguments acting as a defense. It really was just the first attempt to try to enact a new interpretation whose popularity was only a few decades old. It's odd because they made sure to state their sweeping overhaul of legal precedent didn't then erase other gun regulations, leaving the question of where do these things get challenged open. It also only applied to federal restrictions, not states, until McDonald v Chicago (2010)
Exactly this.
My biggest reason for calling for a new constitution is because of these sorts of battles. We have had so many interpretations of our constitution that have changed, and many rightfully so, because of our contemporary society. This is how it is supposed to work, and I have no problem with that, but we have to be honest that the need for constant interpretation is very near, if not here already. The U.S. Constitution just doesn't translate well for today's society in a lot of ways, and so it's time for a rewrite. We should be proud we made it work this long, seriously, but it's time to give up the ghost.
JMHO.
