Heller only applies to handguns?

[44 AMP]

(since a handgun is a very personal weapon with poor militia utility),

Poor militia utility is, I think only accurate when compared to mission success. The handgun may not win a battle, but it might save the soldier who does win the battle.

or so I have often heard. I would not by choice go after the enemy armed only with a handgun, BUT having a handgun is a very comforting thing alone in the dark, inside a hole, or a tent, or even your sleeping bag. Certainly of more utility to me at that point than the service rifle.

The Supreme Court has a long history of being very specific about what they say, and the rest of the legal system taking off full speed on what they THINK the Supreme court said.

Sawed off shotguns have no militia utility, this was the ruling of the SCOTUS as believed, after the Miller case (NFA 34). On the face of it, it seems patently ridiculous, anyone who has ever had to consider combat inside a building or a trench, etc. can recognize the potential utility of a short barreled shotgun. Why didn't SCOTUS??

apparently they did. But they award the judgment to the government (the defense never showed up), using the reasoning "This Court has been presented no evidence..."

It's simple, really, because no evidence of militia utility was given, the assumption became that there was no militia utility, and that piece of garbage is still the law of the land, today.

The ruling in Heller is very specific, and at the same time, a serious dodge of the overall issues we hoped would also be clarified in that case.

Heller prohibits complete bans. Other things are allowed, until they get ruled on separately.

[jdc1244]

This is the likely source of the controversy:

The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27-CENSORED-banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F.-CENSORED-3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.
[...]
It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid. (DC v. Heller)

The Court seems to be bestowing upon the handgun particular consideration with regard to their regulation and the constitutionality of such regulatory measures.

The Heller Court is in essence designating the handgun comprehensively as a 'class of weapons' immune from attack by the state; government may not, for example, prohibit the possession of semi-automatic handguns while allowing the possession of revolvers because the latter are perceived to be 'more safe.' Instead, any prohibition of any handgun is repugnant to the Second Amendment.

This is not to say that long guns are without Constitutional protections, but the Court did not address long guns in the same manner, failing to identify them likewise to be the “quintessential self-defense weapon.”

State lawmakers may have inferred from this that they are at liberty to classify long guns for the purpose of lawful regulation as they see fit, where long guns manifest in any number of 'classifications' of weapons – semi-automatic rifles as opposed to bolt action rifles, for example.

The lower courts have followed suit, allowing the prohibition of AR pattern rifles because such measures are narrowly tailored enough to allow residents of the state ample opportunities to secure other types of firearms for self-defense, including all handguns with their 'quintessential' status.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by jdc1244

The Court seems to be bestowing upon the handgun particular consideration with regard to their regulation and the constitutionality of such regulatory measures.

The Heller Court is in essence designating the handgun comprehensively as a 'class of weapons' immune from attack by the state; government may not, for example, prohibit the possession of semi-automatic handguns while allowing the possession of revolvers because the latter are perceived to be 'more safe.' Instead, any prohibition of any handgun is repugnant to the Second Amendment.

I respectfully disagree. It's one thing to say that handguns are a class of firearms and to say that the government can't ban the entire class. That doesn't say the government can't ban some portions of the class. The courts don't seem to have a problem with banning certain types (scary looking ones) of semi-automatic rifles, and one of the justifications is that people can buy non-scary rifles that do the same things. I would conjecture that the same might be true of handguns. The appeals court recently upheld the New York and Connecticut 10-round magazine limits, so that effectively bans semi-automatic handguns with capacities greater than 10 rounds.

I don't think we're on solid ground if we think that handguns are "immune from attack." T'ain't so.