Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Metal gog
I have no doubt Scalia meant to not undo other restrictions already on the books .
|
He didn't want to undo other restrictions
in Heller, but that doesn't mean he said they couldn't be undone. That's why he referred to them as "presumptively" lawful. In plain English, that basically meant (and means), "They're
presumed to be lawful for now, until such time as a court examines them and decides whether they really are lawful ... or not."
The Supreme Court generally doesn't engage in throwing the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water. When they take a case, they tend to decide the case very narrowly, addressing only the constitutional issue raised by the case.
In
Heller, the question itself was very narrow ... by design. Dick Heller complained that he was not allowed to keep a
handgun (he didn't mention rifles or shotguns, so if you read the decision you'll find that the decision only applies to handguns) in operable condition
in his home (he didn't ask why he couldn't carry a gun out in public, on the mean streets). And that's why the decision focuses narrowly on the constitutionality of the Washington, DC, law that didn't allow Dick Heller to keep an operable
handgun in his
home.
That's why the decision only addressed the home. As we have seen, since
Heller many lower courts have bent, folded, twisted, spindled and mutilated
Heller to claim that
Heller said that the right to keep and bear arms applies ONLY in the home. NO! That's not what
Heller said. But you have to read the decision to find that out, because so many people (and judges) have erroneously (maybe) or intentionally (much more likely) misstated it.