Some Limitations

Here’s some limitations prsented from the opinion:

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.

Interesting.  Perhaps The Court will be willing to entertain open carry being constitutionally protected, while concealed carry remains something that may be licensed by the state.  But can it be outright prohibited?   Doesn’t seem to get into that.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. More From Erwin Chemerinsky
  2. Pissing off the Right People
  3. Extreme Judicial Activism

6 thoughts on “Some Limitations”

  4. “So, this begs the question…are MGs and SBRs “dangerous and unusual weapons”

    – Well they’re only “unusual” BECAUSE of government restriction of them. They would be normal and “in common use” if not for 70+ years of NFA restrictions.

  5. I think we’re wide open to an argument that the only reason MGs and SBRs aren’t in “common use” is that they’ve been heavily restricted. If they weren’t I know lots of folks who would have purchased a select-fire M-4/M-16 instead of a semi-auto AR-15. My read is that Scalia wasn’t about to come right out and say MGs are ok, but he didn’t slam the door either. There’s an opening for an argument to be made.

Comments are closed.