10-10-2009, 04:00 PM
quote:They answered that question. As it currently stands, it's an individual right limited to your home.
Originally posted by oink
Actually, I thought their ruling was very narrow and left most 2nd Amendment questions unanswered, save the one big one about whether it's an individual right or not.
It's unconstitutional to have laws that essentially prevent a person from owning a gun in their home unless disqualified. It's also unconstitutional to restrict certain typical classes of weapons, such as DC's, or the case in Illinois where handguns are prohibited. It's unconstitutional to place restrictions on guns in a home to the degree it renders that gun unusable for self defense. This is aimed at laws that mandate certain physical steps such as being dismantled, etc.
There were several items left unanswered, but these are more about the specific of legal restrictions and no so much the question of the constitutional right to own the gun.
They didn't provide enough guidance of disqualification of a person. These will have to be addressed as felons, child molesters, gang bangers, mentally ill, wife beaters, etc challenge a disqualification.
They left partially unanswered what type of firearms is prohibited. They did say such a-typical weapons like assault rifles, automatic weapons, bazookas, or sawed off shotguns are excluded. But, using the reference to military style didn't really answer the question. Again, these will be answered when somebody challenges a denial to keep a 20 mm Vulcan machine gun under their pillow.
They didn't answer the question of reasonable rules on licensing, registration, training, etc. I suspect that the reasonable test will be akin to Hawaii's procedures.
The last issue is a bit more complex. They never answered the question as to what rights, if any, and individual has when off their property. They weren’t asked to answer that, so they didn't. But based on their hesitation to even mention any expanding of that right off private property, it’s a toss up on this issue. When asked, they may decide its not a constitutional issue and public carry or CCW's is not covered under the constitution, or they may decide a state can't have a law that basically prevents any option for public carry.
One thing they did rule on and it's kinda lost in all the other issues, is that this right is an individual rights. This means in exercising your right to possess, you can't impose it on a person who chooses not to exercise the rights. So, in your home, or on your private property you can have a firearm if you like, but everyone else can ban firearms if they want on the property they own because that's their rights.