Quote:
|
Heller and McDonald dealt with a complete prohibition of a entire class of weapons because that was the specific question in the case before the court.
|
Exactly.
Quote:
|
To then extrapolate from that the right only covers that and nothing else...
|
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that
McDonald and Heller don't go any farther than that. I expect to see more cases in the future and more advances, but saying at this point in the game that an AWB would be legally problematic based on what THESE rulings say is speculative at the very best.
Quote:
|
...the difference between Heller and McDonald is that Alito delcared the 2nd amendment a fundamental right . You can check out the entire opinion on SCOTUSBLOG. Just look at Alito's part - no need to peruse all the dissents. This wording of this phrase is surprisingly clear and strong. Alito's declaration, according to most legal interpretations that I have seen, confers a strict level of scrutiny. It's much more declarative than Heller, since the color of the 14th was not an issue.
|
Somehow I don't think what I'm trying to say is getting across.
All of that is well and good, but the two rulings still don't directly apply to anything other than complete prohibitions against possessing an entire general class of commonly used self-defense firearms.
I don't think that anyone doubts that McDonald will be more useful than Heller in the future, but as things currently stand, the only REAL difference is that McDonald extends Heller to state/local laws.