{"id":971,"date":"2008-06-26T10:13:41","date_gmt":"2008-06-26T14:13:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blacknell.net\/dynamic\/?p=971"},"modified":"2008-06-26T10:41:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-26T14:41:00","slug":"you-have-an-individual-right-to-bear-arms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blacknell.net\/dynamic\/2008\/06\/26\/you-have-an-individual-right-to-bear-arms\/","title":{"rendered":"You Have An Individual Right to Bear Arms in the United States"},"content":{"rendered":"

So says the U.S. Supreme Court, 5-4.<\/p>\n

Brace yourselves.<\/p>\n

Majority opinion and dissent here<\/a>. (PDF)<\/p>\n

Held:
\n1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
\nfirearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
\ntraditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
\nPp. 2\u00e2\u20ac\u201c53.
\n(a) The Amendment\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
\ndoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
\nclause.<\/p>\n

[ . . . ]<\/p>\n

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
\nIt is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
\nmanner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
\nweapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
\nor state analogues. The Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s opinion should not be taken to cast
\ndoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
\nfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
\nin sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
\nlaws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
\narms. Miller\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u0153in common use at the time\u00e2\u20ac\u009d finds support in the historical tradition
\nof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
\nPp. 54\u00e2\u20ac\u201c56.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And there go the triggerlock laws:<\/p>\n

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
\nhome be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
\nfor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
\nis hence unconstitutional.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Mayor Fenty says his office “has a Plan B.”\u00c2\u00a0 Umkay.\u00c2\u00a0 It’ll be interesting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

So says the U.S. Supreme Court, 5-4. Brace yourselves. Majority opinion and dissent here. (PDF) Held: 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. Pp. 2\u00e2\u20ac\u201c53. (a) The Amendment\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s prefatory […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9,4,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dc","category-law","category-society"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t