The NRA won

[M14 Shooter]

There were officers in the parking lot stopping private sales.

On what grounds?

 

[Flopper]

They didn't make it very hard for that guy.

By the way, I am pretty sure I never supported a fence. I think it will help in some places. I used to work at a company where, if I wasn't careful, I could cross into Mexico accidentally. Putting up a, small, fence would at least help keep the people who aren't paying attention from ending up in the wrong country.

Which is exactly the reason for background checks, it won't stop people from shooting people, it just makes it a little harder.

Borders are imaginary lines, and background checks do not make it any harder to shoot people.

By restricting the mentally ill and criminals access to guns, it makes if more difficult to use those guns because it becomes more difficult to acquire them. It's pretty simple logic. You just chose to ignore it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which is exactly the reason for background checks, it won't stop people from shooting people, it just makes it a little harder.

Borders are imaginary lines, and background checks do not make it any harder to shoot people.

By restricting the mentally ill and criminals access to guns, it makes if more difficult to use those guns because it becomes more difficult to acquire them.

Its already illegal for criminals and the mentally ill to have guns; you cannot restrict this to any further degree.

How does making it harder for the law-abiding to get guns make it harder for criminals and the mentall illy from comitting crimes with guns?

 

[JakeStarkey]

How does this make it harder "for the law abiding" citizens "to get guns"?

What a silly comment by you, M14. How does this injure you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Justice Antonin Scalia on the Second Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By John Scalzi

From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling, written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:

"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."

Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.

Toad go fuck yourself Miller vs US dictates what firearms are protected by the second amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Justice Antonin Scalia on the Second Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By John Scalzi

From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling, written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:

"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."

Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.

Toad go fuck yourself Miller vs US dictates what firearms are protected by the second amendment.

Never mind that no one argues that the 2nd protects a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How does this make it harder "for the law abiding" citizens "to get guns"?

What a silly comment by you, M14. How does this injure you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Justice Antonin Scalia on the Second Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By John Scalzi

From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling, written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:

"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."

Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.

Toad go fuck yourself Miller vs US dictates what firearms are protected by the second amendment.

But what Jake doesn't tell you is that Scalia's opinion was written despite his voting to uphold.

He went on to say

"Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."


Heller v. DC (2008) affirms that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010) The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

In US v. Arzberger (2009) The Court held that "To the extent, then, that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm."

(Hint: Toomey-Manchin makes note of such a similar means to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights based on presumed mental impairments of any US citizen by his or her doctor)

Nice job Jake, I handed your ass to you again. Keep spinning it up man.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Borders are imaginary lines, and background checks do not make it any harder to shoot people.

By restricting the mentally ill and criminals access to guns, it makes if more difficult to use those guns because it becomes more difficult to acquire them.

Its already illegal for criminals and the mentally ill to have guns; you cannot restrict this to any further degree.

How does making it harder for the law-abiding to get guns make it harder for criminals and the mentall illy from comitting crimes with guns?

If it's constitutional to keep criminals from owning guns then it's constitutional to use the appropriate means necessary to enforce that law.

That means background checks are entirely appropriate and constitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justice Antonin Scalia on the Second Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By John Scalzi

From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling, written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:

"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."

Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.

Toad go fuck yourself Miller vs US dictates what firearms are protected by the second amendment.

Scalia told you to go fuck yourself and Miller. Tuff, bigreb. It is what it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justice Antonin Scalia on the Second Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By John Scalzi

From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling, written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:

"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."

Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.

Toad go fuck yourself Miller vs US dictates what firearms are protected by the second amendment.

Never mind that no one argues that the 2nd protects a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Never mind that SCOTUS and not you are the ones that count in its interpretation.

End of story.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TemplarKormac, that picture of you does you justice for sure.

A crazy analogy is a crazy analogy.

Tell me, TemplarKrazy, how does this law hurt you?

And to the rest of you: notice the ad homs because the dopes have nothing else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justice Antonin Scalia on the Second Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By John Scalzi

From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling, written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:

"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."

Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.

Toad go fuck yourself Miller vs US dictates what firearms are protected by the second amendment.

But what Jake doesn't tell you is that Scalia's opinion was written despite his voting to uphold.

He went on to say

"Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."


Heller v. DC (2008) affirms that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010) The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

In US v. Arzberger (2009) The Court held that "To the extent, then, that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm."

(Hint: Toomey-Manchin makes note of such a similar means to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights based on presumed mental impairments of any US citizen by his or her doctor)

Nice job Jake, I handed your ass to you again. Keep spinning it up man.

And of course, you ignored, TemplarKormac, the important part:

(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. Pp. 47–54.

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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

TemplarKormac, keep offering them up and they will keep getting hit out of the park.

Reactionary fringe crazees like TK are afraid to tell the whole story. They should be.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Toad go fuck yourself Miller vs US dictates what firearms are protected by the second amendment.

But what Jake doesn't tell you is that Scalia's opinion was written despite his voting to uphold.

He went on to say

"Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."


Heller v. DC (2008) affirms that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010) The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

In US v. Arzberger (2009) The Court held that "To the extent, then, that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm."

(Hint: Toomey-Manchin makes note of such a similar means to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights based on presumed mental impairments of any US citizen by his or her doctor)

Nice job Jake, I handed your ass to you again. Keep spinning it up man.

And of course, you ignored, TemplarKormac, the important part:

(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. Pp. 47–54.

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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

TemplarKormac, keep offering them up and they will keep getting hit out of the park.

Reactionary fringe crazees like TK are afraid to tell the whole story. They should be.

Jake ignores Miller vs. U.S.
If miller hasn't been overturned shut the fuck up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Toad go fuck yourself Miller vs US dictates what firearms are protected by the second amendment.

Never mind that no one argues that the 2nd protects a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Never mind that SCOTUS and not you are the ones that count in its interpretation.

End of story.

Miller vs. U.S. chickenshit.,

 

[M14 Shooter]

Jake ignores Miller vs. U.S.
If miller hasn't been overturned shut the fuck up.

Jake ignores things like logic, reason and a fundamental understanding of the English language.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Justice Antonin Scalia on the Second Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By John Scalzi

From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling, written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:

"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."

Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.

Toad go fuck yourself Miller vs US dictates what firearms are protected by the second amendment.

Scalia told you to go fuck yourself and Miller. Tuff, bigreb. It is what it is.

Yes Miller is what it is, and put's you in your place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Toad go fuck yourself Miller vs US dictates what firearms are protected by the second amendment.

But what Jake doesn't tell you is that Scalia's opinion was written despite his voting to uphold.

He went on to say

"Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."


Heller v. DC (2008) affirms that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010) The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

In US v. Arzberger (2009) The Court held that "To the extent, then, that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm."

(Hint: Toomey-Manchin makes note of such a similar means to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights based on presumed mental impairments of any US citizen by his or her doctor)

Nice job Jake, I handed your ass to you again. Keep spinning it up man.

And of course, you ignored, TemplarKormac, the important part:

(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. Pp. 47–54.

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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

TemplarKormac, keep offering them up and they will keep getting hit out of the park.

Reactionary fringe crazees like TK are afraid to tell the whole story. They should be.

What you keep forgetting is that they upheld the right itself. Meaning you have no argument. Washed up. You want all firearms to be banned, that is why you continue to cite these things. Which I may note, is not even opinions of the court. They are opinions of opinions of the court, and have no bearing on the law as it is.

This ruling does not apply to handguns, or assault rifles. It applies to military ordinance, or weapons of mass deterrence or destruction, that would be used in warfare, like tanks, RPGs, missile launchers, anti-personnel mines, grenade launchers, fully automatic machine guns, and et cetera. In that sense our second amendment rights are limited for good reason. However, you bring this up for an entirely different reason. Gun control.

I love how you keep calling me a "reactionary fringe crazee." I've whipped you more than once, you can't seem to take the punishment.

You got warning track power bro.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But what Jake doesn't tell you is that Scalia's opinion was written despite his voting to uphold.

He went on to say

"Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."


Heller v. DC (2008) affirms that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010) The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

In US v. Arzberger (2009) The Court held that "To the extent, then, that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm."

(Hint: Toomey-Manchin makes note of such a similar means to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights based on presumed mental impairments of any US citizen by his or her doctor)

Nice job Jake, I handed your ass to you again. Keep spinning it up man.

And of course, you ignored, TemplarKormac, the important part:

(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. Pp. 47–54.

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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

TemplarKormac, keep offering them up and they will keep getting hit out of the park.

Reactionary fringe crazees like TK are afraid to tell the whole story. They should be.

What you keep forgetting is that they upheld the right itself. Meaning you have no argument. Washed up. You want all firearms to be banned, that is why you continue to cite these things. Which I may note, is not even opinions of the court. They are opinions of opinions of the court, and have no bearing on the law as it is.

This ruling does not apply to handguns, or assault rifles. It applies to military ordinance, or weapons of mass deterrence or destruction, that would be used in warfare, like tanks, RPGs, missile launchers, anti-personnel mines, grenade launchers, fully automatic machine guns, and et cetera. In that sense our second amendment rights are limited for good reason. However, you bring this up for an entirely different reason. Gun control.

I love how you keep calling me a "reactionary fringe crazee." I've whipped you more than once, you can't seem to take the punishment.

You got warning track power bro

ctio
I do not bring up gun control at all. That is admitted in the decision, yet even bigreb goes crazy that he can't have a weapon of mass destruction. Quote the whole,: 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. Pp. 47–54

The leges will pass the law, the SCOTUS will opine, and you will obey. Strike Three, your out out out.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Toad go fuck yourself Miller vs US dictates what firearms are protected by the second amendment.

But what Jake doesn't tell you is that Scalia's opinion was written despite his voting to uphold.

He went on to say

"Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."


Heller v. DC (2008) affirms that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010) The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

In US v. Arzberger (2009) The Court held that "To the extent, then, that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm."

(Hint: Toomey-Manchin makes note of such a similar means to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights based on presumed mental impairments of any US citizen by his or her doctor)

Nice job Jake, I handed your ass to you again. Keep spinning it up man.

And of course, you ignored, TemplarKormac, the important part:

(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. Pp. 47–54.

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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

TemplarKormac, keep offering them up and they will keep getting hit out of the park.

Reactionary fringe crazees like TK are afraid to tell the whole story. They should be.

Heller ruled the second amendment is individual right
All heller is saying , is that you don'r have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms

does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes.

Miller is saying that In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller