imported post
bnhcomputing wrote:
I respectfully disagree. Scalia also wrote, that justjaywalking would NOT BE ENFORCED should you do so to preserve life/limb the local firearms discharge ordinances should not be enforced either should one need to use that ".38 in your nightstand."
You're correct, and he said so right up front in the Syllabus (not citable) that such a prohibition (as that in actual question) "-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster."
But he also said (again from the Syllabus):
"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."
My $.02 on Heller is that much will flow from it, but it is not the instantaneous panacea many think. Of import to me was J. Scalia's:
"A constitutional guarantee subject to future
judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional
guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with
the scope they were understood to have when the people
adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes)
even future judges think that scope too broad."
I personally find that one of the finest things ever written.