The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Can someone answer 2 questions on the 2nd ammendment ruling?

csmsss · March 23, 2009, 09:57 PM

A couple of other points. First, Heller is silent with respect to the personal carrying of firearms and in no case, incorporation or no, can it be construed as extending the right of citizens to carry firearms on their persons.

Second, Heller speaks only to laws which effectively prohibit ALL firearms that might legitimately be suitable for self-defense. It specifically provides for "reasonable" regulation of firearms - it just doesn't make clear what reasonable means nor how reasonable restrictions would be implemented.

Third, Heller is entirely silent on the issue of ammunition restrictions, taxation and prohibition. It's entirely conceivable that an end-run around Heller, even were it incorporated via the 14th Amendment to states, cities and counties, can be made just by enacting such laws which would basically make ammunition illegal, even if the firearms in which that ammunition would be used would be perfectly legal.

Last, my opinion is that Heller v. DC is a purely symbolic one. I find it to be very poorly written, and to interpret the 2nd Amendment too narrowly - basically setting the stage for future parsing of 2nd Amendment rights into such arbitrarily and rigidly defined wedges that these rights exist in name only. I hope I'm wrong.

March 23, 2009, 09:57 PM	#3
csmsss Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Orange, TX Posts: 3,078	A couple of other points. First, Heller is silent with respect to the personal carrying of firearms and in no case, incorporation or no, can it be construed as extending the right of citizens to carry firearms on their persons. Second, Heller speaks only to laws which effectively prohibit ALL firearms that might legitimately be suitable for self-defense. It specifically provides for "reasonable" regulation of firearms - it just doesn't make clear what reasonable means nor how reasonable restrictions would be implemented. Third, Heller is entirely silent on the issue of ammunition restrictions, taxation and prohibition. It's entirely conceivable that an end-run around Heller, even were it incorporated via the 14th Amendment to states, cities and counties, can be made just by enacting such laws which would basically make ammunition illegal, even if the firearms in which that ammunition would be used would be perfectly legal. Last, my opinion is that Heller v. DC is a purely symbolic one. I find it to be very poorly written, and to interpret the 2nd Amendment too narrowly - basically setting the stage for future parsing of 2nd Amendment rights into such arbitrarily and rigidly defined wedges that these rights exist in name only. I hope I'm wrong.