Alan Gottlieb talks Gun Control, Risks to 2nd Amendment Rights :: Guns.com

From the Heller Decision for those that haven’t taken the time to read it but feel compelled to critique my assessment of a problem
of gun proliferation:

the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Heller also expressed that the right was not unlimited and that common sense practices that could be considered when appropriate. Regulation of sales, prohibited possession by some people, obligations on proper carry, qualifications for use. It’s not an inalienable right to possess a firearm. For those that demand this to be true, I can inform you that it is not so.
Be Well fellow Warriors

Heller did not express any such thing. He was the plaintive. If you meant the District of Columbia v. Heller, it was the dissenting Justices who “expressed that the right was not unlimited...” The other Five Justices upheld Heller's challenge to the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. IT NO LONGER STANDS.

1. The Second Amendment is an Inalienable right. It is written in the constitution, the Amendments have ALL been accepted as part of the constitution, and by law Inalienable. When the U.S. Supreme Court released their ruling on the District of Columbia gun ban case, they found the right to be “Inalienable.” The court ruled that the Second Amendment did guarantee an individual’s right to bear arms. Yes, they went on to say that, the government could control and regulate firearms. However, the Government can control and regulate ALL of ones rights for example; Free Speech (Can't Yell Fire in a Crowded Room), Religions (Certain aspect of religion can't be practice like human sacrifice), Pursuit of Happiness (As long as it doesn't infringe on others rights or ones happiness causes harm to others)...

2. The Second Amendment is CLEAR when it comes to firearms ownership. The government’s right to control and regulate firearms does not change this. You conflate the issue when you say it does. The government has the right to control and regulate ALL our Civil Rights. Regulating Civil Rights, The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990, and the Concealed weapons prohibitions are a separate argument within the Second Amendment. Arguments currently under debated in the courts. However, they in NO WAY take away ones right to own firearms or assign a number of firearms one can own. Even in Hawaii where gun laws are the strictest, they have the right to own weapons/ firearms and with permits can carry concealed. The bans, amendments, and state analogues you mentioned (Particularly the GFSZA) are being challenged as we speak. TX and FL are currently challenging the bans. MO and a few other states have just passed laws contrary to the GFSZA. The ban challenges and challenges to the new laws will probably work their way up the courts to the Supreme Court in the future. The results could make my argument or yours on this point moot. However, as of now the various laws and prohibitions are indeed being challenged and do not change one’s right “keep and bear Arms.” Again, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The infringement is a big part of this topic being debated.

3. Mentally ill - This prohibition varies from State to state and is NOT Universal. An estimated 26% of Americans ages 18 and older or about 1 in 4 adults -- suffers from a diagnosable mental disorder. About 5.2% or less are Seriously Mental Ill (SMI). Current laws ranges from clear and concise restricting those who are SMI from possessing a firearm; "No person shall possess or own any firearm who has been adjudicated mentally ill or adjudged mentally incompetent." Which I agree with. To, being too vague and unnecessarily restrictive; "No person of unsound mind shall own a firearm or have one in his or her possession or under his or her control." That could apply to any of the other 21% of our population (or someone like me, who is an adrenalin junky and my friend say, “I am crazy.")). Being SMI SHOULD be a disqualifier from owning a firearm. Having a mental disorder needs to be examines CLOSELY. Not everyone with a mental disorder is a danger to themselves or others. As some states have deemed.

4. Gun proliferation- Is a matter of opinion and does not really tilt the scales in this debate. However, I will address it anyway. Proliferation will not change without forced seizures. Even if your opinion is that current gun proliferation is excessive, it does not change the fact that, per capita the number of guns owned is a SMALL fraction of guns used in gun crimes and murders. The Small Arms Survey/SAS estimates that American civilians own 393 million guns, of that 2,628,532 (less than 1%) were/are used to commit a gun related crime, and of those crimes 14,542 (0.553... or 0.6%) resulted in a fatality/murder. Of the 393 million civilian own guns in the US, only 0.0037% were used to commit a murder. Actually, far less when one takes into account guns illegally obtained were used to commit most murders.

5. Carrying concealed is NOT as difficult or restrictive as you allude. When I was in Law Enforcement I carried concealed quit often. When I went back on active duty I stayed POST Certified (Did my annual continuing education classes...) and obtained a concealed carry permit. A couple of year ago I stop taking my POST continuing education classes. But, kept my concealed carry permit. Due to reciprocity, I can concealed carry with some restrictions in 38 states, and concealed carry with no restrictions in 18 of those states. My ability to carry concealed is determined by the States, not by Federal Law, as it should be. As far as just owning my guns and not concealed carrying. I have NO restrictions (Ok, I can't own a "Machin Gun." But as posted above there are waivers, Licenses, and loop holes to get around that prohibition). I legally own ALL my firearms, I have quit a few, and some YOU would probably frown on for my owning them. But, I do legally own my guns. I demand NOTHING to be true! The facts are under current law; my rights granted to me by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, means my guns cannot be taken from me. The fact that you and others do not like it or disagree with what guns and how many guns I own, does not matter.

Your assessment and opinion does not make it so or change OUR Second Amendment Rights. EVERYTHING you have posted is just that, an assessment and opinion.

District of Columbia v. Heller Held:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. It should be noted in many states the Guard is the Militia. This really broadens the definition of those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Pp. 56–64.

Affirmed by Justice Scalia, J., Justice Roberts, C. J., Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito

Dissenting opinion were offered/filed by Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer