For A good background on what the
Heller case did or didn't do, read
this thread. It is from the old L&P forum and is a read-only archive.
From that thread, BillCA in post #92 writes:
- The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm;
- No connection with a "militia" is necessary to possess a firearm;
- Citizens can use a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home;
- The court views "militia weapons" to be "firearms in common use at the time" which would include most common handguns, rifles and shotguns, but not necessarily a sawed-off shotgun or other " dangerous and unusual weapons".
- The right is not absolute and the court did not change many of the existing restrictions, such as prohibitions against felons or the mentally ill from possessing firearms.
- The court left intact most existing restrictions, such as prohibitions against carrying in certain buildings or schools.
- Nor did the court suggest laws imposing conditions and qualifications on commercial sales were unconstitutional in this decision.
- The question of protection for automatic rifles, like the M-16, is still debatable.
- The Court let stand the D.C. licensing arrangement since that was not contested as unconstitutional.
The decision in
Heller was monumental, only because for the first time since the founding of our country, has the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment is in fact, an individual right and not contingent upon any military venue.
Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said many things. Mostly in dicta, however. Many of these things will be brought up in other cases and may become law.
Despite the opinion of csmsss,
Heller was very well written, when considering the narrowness of the questions asked and answered. That the decision did not reach further, is to criticize the Court for not deciding an issue that it was not presented with.