Look, Charles, you and I disagree on some little fundamentals but let's be honest we are splitting hairs. Heller vs. US seems to spell out some explicit words. Case law might not be the strongest logical opposition but can you rebut the court ruling itself?
I don't doubt your ability to interpret words, I'm just curious.
Why would I want to rebut Heller? It is a very good RKBA decision. A vital decision. But not the end-all, be-all decision.
But what it rules is found entirely in the "Held:" section starting on page 1. To whit (edited for length but not for material content):
1. 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)-(f) [various supportive statements to 1]
2.Like most rights, 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. Pp. 54–56.
3.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. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.
STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
Everything else is really just the verbose logic and reasoning by which the court arrived at its decision.
Notice what the court "Held" (or ruled) in Heller (in plain English):
1-The 2nd amendment protects and individual RKBA not requiring any connection to militia membership nor service.
2-The 2nd amendment is not unlimited and this ruling doesn't go any farther than what we (the court) have explicitly said. Lower courts, don't go overturning long standing laws about felons, off-limits locations, or limits on concealed carrying.
3-The DC licensing scheme is unconstitutional because it is discriminatory and without a license it is illegal to keep a usable gun for home defense. DC, you are ordered to issue Heller a license so long as he is not disqualified from exercising his individual 2nd amendment right to a usable gun inside his home.
Period. End of ruling. The next 44 pages of printed legal opinions are just the majority and minority showcasing their logic in hopes that lower courts and future SCOTUS courts will seize on something to the benefit of their desired position. Ok, to be fair, the majority opinion is a bit more than just showcasing. The logic and reasoning is supposed to be used by lower courts to make consistent decisions in similar cases in the future. But the truly binding part is the first couple of pages in the "Held:" section.
And the SCOTUS issues zero ruling, did not "hold", anything relative to possession of guns outside the home. It used bans on concealed carry as examples of laws showing limits on the 2nd amendment and said it wasn't overturning such laws. But it did not specifically rule on concealed carry. Likewise, in the majority opinion we can find some references to carrying guns and to other court cases ruling on OC. But these are used as examples and as logic to arrive at the 3 fundamental holdings I listed above. The court did not rule or "hold" anything relative to OC in Heller.
Would that it had. Heller was great. First SCOTUS decision holding that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. But beyond that, pretty narrow. A solid foundation on which to build other cases including McDonald, the 4th District Chester Decision (tossing lifetime loss of RKBA for misdemeanor DV), the 7th Circuit Moore decision holding that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to possess guns outside the home for self defense, and gymnastic surrounding the 9th circuit Nordyke case regarding bans on gun shows.
But for all these good decisions, perhaps twice as many bad decisions have been issued by circuit courts since Heller including one decision upholding the lifetime loss of RKBA for misdemeanor DV.
Heller is a start. Not the conclusion. And I don't doubt for one second that a minor shift in the court's justices would result in either a complete reversal of Heller, or explicit allowance of so many onerous "common sense" laws as to make Heller effectively meaningless. We need to be pushing to advance statutory recognition of RKBA everywhere we can, and getting court cases that recognize various aspects of RKBA as protected by the 2nd amendment. A ruling that forces a city to do shall issue permits is not perfect, but a move in the right direction. A ruling that government property cannot discriminate against gun shows is a small victory. Overturning lifetime loss of rights for misdemeanor DV, mental illness, and so on are steps to take. We can't afford to be picky about which victories we can get where. Some will be imperfect but move in the right direction. So be it.
Charles