Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
Yes.... and Blacks should have just sat in the back of the bus or moved out of those democrat controlled states. Sorry, Rights can't be taken away by states, they do not very because people like you want fewer of them....
And I suppose you are a proponent to not allow White People to sit in the front of the bus or sit at the counters? What does this have to do with the 2nd amendment? You are sounding like a complete idjit on this one.
You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.The Second Amendment BEGINS
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."
That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.
Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".
We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members
Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....
No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.
So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.
You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.The Second Amendment BEGINS
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."
That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.
Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".
We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members
Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....
No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.
So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.
Nonsense.
If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible
I absolutely read Heller and it's an insane opinion.You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.The Second Amendment BEGINS
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."
That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.
Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".
We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members
Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....
No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.
So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.
Nonsense.
If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible
You didn't read Heller....got it...but if you want to post with intelligence on this topic, please go and read what Scalia actually wrote and how he backed up what he wrote with historical and legal Precedents..... And yes....a democrat Supreme Court did rule in Dredd Scott..... which shows that gun grabbers can be wrong too...
The Second Amendment BEGINS
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."
That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.
Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".
We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members
Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....
No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.
Again, Scalia voiced a dissenting view. That's the losers view. He expounded much longer than the actual ruling. He ragged on and on. His views are not worth the paper it's printed on legally. You keep trying to make Heller V DC from something quite simple into something quite complicated. It's very simple. Heller was denied his right to own a serviceable handgun in his home. He was denied the right to obtain a proper license to possess the gun in his home. The existing law stated that the only way he could have a handgun in his home was to have it either disassembled or with a trigger guard rendering it inoperable and he was denied a licenses to have a serviceable handgun in his home. The Heller v DC ruling reversed that law. Simple as that. Heller still had to have a background check on his handgun, could not bring it out into the street unless rendered inoperable and still was required to have a license for himself to possess that handgun as per the DC laws. This is a bit more restrictive than we have here but it ain't DC here. Stop trying to make it into something difficult.
You are talking, ignorantly, out of your ass again.
Scalia wrote the Majority Opinion for the D.C v Heller Supreme Court decision...... He explained which guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment and explained in terms even you can understand that the 2nd Amendment is an individual Right to own and carry a gun....even explaining in the simplest of terms, for people like you, what "Bear Arms" meant...
You don't know what you are talking about.
You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.The Second Amendment BEGINS
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."
That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.
Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".
We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members
Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....
No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.
So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.
Nonsense.
If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible
You didn't read Heller....got it...but if you want to post with intelligence on this topic, please go and read what Scalia actually wrote and how he backed up what he wrote with historical and legal Precedents..... And yes....a democrat Supreme Court did rule in Dredd Scott..... which shows that gun grabbers can be wrong too...
And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
Yes.... and Blacks should have just sat in the back of the bus or moved out of those democrat controlled states. Sorry, Rights can't be taken away by states, they do not very because people like you want fewer of them....
And I suppose you are a proponent to not allow White People to sit in the front of the bus or sit at the counters? What does this have to do with the 2nd amendment? You are sounding like a complete idjit on this one.
What my post demonstrates is that states cannot make laws that violate individual Rights of citizens.... so you saying they can make laws violating the Right to keep and bear arms is stupid......considering you would use the same argument to say that democrat states could keep blacks from sitting in the front of the bus because they are state laws and states get to make laws....
You are wrong on both counts...
I absolutely read Heller and it's an insane opinion.You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.
So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.
Nonsense.
If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible
You didn't read Heller....got it...but if you want to post with intelligence on this topic, please go and read what Scalia actually wrote and how he backed up what he wrote with historical and legal Precedents..... And yes....a democrat Supreme Court did rule in Dredd Scott..... which shows that gun grabbers can be wrong too...
Scalia backed into his POLITICAL position with the most absurd arguments.
Every previous SC decision regarding guns did so within the framework of the militia clause...because....well...it's THERE.
Scalia decoupled the militia clause because....he felt like it
I absolutely read Heller and it's an insane opinion.You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.
So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.
Nonsense.
If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible
You didn't read Heller....got it...but if you want to post with intelligence on this topic, please go and read what Scalia actually wrote and how he backed up what he wrote with historical and legal Precedents..... And yes....a democrat Supreme Court did rule in Dredd Scott..... which shows that gun grabbers can be wrong too...
Scalia backed into his POLITICAL position with the most absurd arguments.
Every previous SC decision regarding guns did so within the framework of the militia clause...because....well...it's THERE.
Scalia decoupled the militia clause because....he felt like it
Yet his opinion holds legal authority while yours does not. Wonder why that is.
And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.
Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
Yes.... and Blacks should have just sat in the back of the bus or moved out of those democrat controlled states. Sorry, Rights can't be taken away by states, they do not very because people like you want fewer of them....
And I suppose you are a proponent to not allow White People to sit in the front of the bus or sit at the counters? What does this have to do with the 2nd amendment? You are sounding like a complete idjit on this one.
What my post demonstrates is that states cannot make laws that violate individual Rights of citizens.... so you saying they can make laws violating the Right to keep and bear arms is stupid......considering you would use the same argument to say that democrat states could keep blacks from sitting in the front of the bus because they are state laws and states get to make laws....
You are wrong on both counts...
Yes, you have an individual right to own a pistol or handgun. But the State can require you to get special licensing to own, possess or carry the handgun even in your home. You may have to meet certain requirements. Or the state can just say that it's your right to have a handgun in your home without special licensing like most do, but not all. In DC, you have to have a special license to have a fully functional handgun in your home and meet certain requirements. This is what came out of Heller V DC.
I absolutely read Heller and it's an insane opinion.You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.
So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.
Nonsense.
If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible
You didn't read Heller....got it...but if you want to post with intelligence on this topic, please go and read what Scalia actually wrote and how he backed up what he wrote with historical and legal Precedents..... And yes....a democrat Supreme Court did rule in Dredd Scott..... which shows that gun grabbers can be wrong too...
Scalia backed into his POLITICAL position with the most absurd arguments.
Every previous SC decision regarding guns did so within the framework of the militia clause...because....well...it's THERE.
Scalia decoupled the militia clause because....he felt like it
Every previous SC decision regarding guns did so within the framework of the militia clause...because....well...it's THERE.
Scalia decoupled the militia clause because....he felt like it
But it's a long winded ruling that really only means that Heller was allowed to keep a fully functional handgun in his home. Nothing more. As much as you wish to read into it, no laws were really rewritten that day in anywhere other than DC and most of the DC gun regs stood and still stand today.
Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.The federal government has no credibility in the matterAnd that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.
Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?
Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
Yes.... and Blacks should have just sat in the back of the bus or moved out of those democrat controlled states. Sorry, Rights can't be taken away by states, they do not very because people like you want fewer of them....
And I suppose you are a proponent to not allow White People to sit in the front of the bus or sit at the counters? What does this have to do with the 2nd amendment? You are sounding like a complete idjit on this one.
What my post demonstrates is that states cannot make laws that violate individual Rights of citizens.... so you saying they can make laws violating the Right to keep and bear arms is stupid......considering you would use the same argument to say that democrat states could keep blacks from sitting in the front of the bus because they are state laws and states get to make laws....
You are wrong on both counts...
Yes, you have an individual right to own a pistol or handgun. But the State can require you to get special licensing to own, possess or carry the handgun even in your home. You may have to meet certain requirements. Or the state can just say that it's your right to have a handgun in your home without special licensing like most do, but not all. In DC, you have to have a special license to have a fully functional handgun in your home and meet certain requirements. This is what came out of Heller V DC.
And those will be challenged as unConstituitonal....since Poll Taxes on the Right to vote were unConstitutional, and in Murdock v Pennsylvania, any tax on the Exercise of a Right is unConstitutional so any tax or fee on the exercise of your 2nd Amendment Rights is unConstitutional...
Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.The federal government has no credibility in the matterAnd that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.
Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people
Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rightsBecause the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.The federal government has no credibility in the matterAnd that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.
Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.
Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people
Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?
I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.
Precedent?Every previous SC decision regarding guns did so within the framework of the militia clause...because....well...it's THERE.
Please cite those decisions and either include the page number or better still, quote the specific passage where SCOTUS framed the citizen's right to arms within the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment.
Scalia decoupled the militia clause because....he felt like it
No, he was just following SCOTUS precedent, saying that the right to arms of the people is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. As Heller says, (re-affirming 133 year old precedent that recognizes the foundational constitutional principle of pre-existing rights):
"III. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”
You would do well to follow Scalia's chiding of Stevens when Stevens dissects the drafting history of the Amendment:
"It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one".
It is even worse to invent conditions and qualifications and restrictions on the right by "interpreting" the words of the 2nd Amendment, chosen only to recognize and secure the right to arms -- NOT GRANT, GIVE, CREATE OR ESTABLISH THE RIGHT.
It is you and your ilk who stand in opposition to SCOTUS holdings on the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment.
And the 2A has no bearing on gun rights other than for their use in the militia...which no longer existsLeave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rightsBecause the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.The federal government has no credibility in the matterWithin Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.
Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people
Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?
I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.
But it's a long winded ruling that really only means that Heller was allowed to keep a fully functional handgun in his home. Nothing more. As much as you wish to read into it, no laws were really rewritten that day in anywhere other than DC and most of the DC gun regs stood and still stand today.
LOL. Heller was a consequential decision, it did "rewrite law" for the entire nation. Heller invalidated the "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations established in the lower federal courts in 1942, those decisions being; Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) respectively.
Those 20th Century "collective right" interpretations forced gun rights / 2nd Amendment jurisprudence off the constitutional rail between 1942 and 2008.
The Supreme Court in Heller slapped the lower federal courts back into line with longstanding SCOTUS opinion.
