Quote:
Originally Posted by RioBravoReptiles
This recent case was concerning the city of DC regulating (to the point of a defacto ban) the possession of most firearms in the home. Such a ban is clearly unconstitutional and the court just reaffirmed that.
.
Carrying or possessing firearms in public, concealed or not-concealed, is a whole other issue and this court case doesn't really address that. I think you'll see in future rulings and regulations that possessing weapons anywhere and anytime you like is not something expressly granted in the constitution (as well as the possession of some types of weapons).
.
That's my take on those subjects.
|
J. Scalia made that clear in the majority opinion. The prohibition of possession by felons or mentally disturbed persons is a reasonable restriction. The more important factor in the opinion is the codification of "the ancient right of self-defense." This is the first time SCOTUS has acknowledged in a written opinion that individuals have a right to defend themselves (with firearms in this case). That's going to have ripples on the CCW issue, as a persons' right to self-defense is defense of his/her person, not just his/her real estate. So, NY City's Sullivan Act, which keeps all but the rich, famous, and politically connected from carrying will not stand up to the right to personal self-defense.
Baby steps. Baby steps. "The right to K.A.B.A. shall not be infringed."
