Some of (if not many of) the quotes in post #7 are not the ruling of the case, but actually opinions and comments on the Districts stance in the case. Most of them were shot down by the decision of the court. At least, that's how I read it.
Here’s what I found:
Page 44
…
The term “Arms” was quite indefinite, but it
would have been peculiar, to say the least, if it were designed to
ensure that people had an individual right to keep weapons
capable of mass destruction—e.g., cannons. Thus the Miller
Court limited the term “Arms”—interpreting it in a manner
consistent with the Amendment’s underlying civic purpose.
Only “Arms” whose “use or possession . . . has some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” id. at 177, would qualify for protection.
I think they fell short on this one. I could maybe understand the WOMD reasoning if the colonists hadn’t had cannon. Furthermore, the court even recognizes that the “military use” is not a requirement to “keep and bear”.
To suggest that they had no such right doesn’t make sense. It also doesn’t explain the “shall not be infringed” part. So far, all they seem to do with that is essentially say that it’s okay to infringe upon the right, but that doing so isn’t an infringement.
Would this argument also allow the outright ban of M-16s or short barreled shotguns if they are considered a destructive device. I’m not sure I believe that it “would have been peculiar,… , if it were designed to endsure that people had an individual right to keep … cannons.”.
Page 54-55
Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent
with a “well regulated Militia.” The registration of firearms
gives the government information as to how many people would
be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm
proficiency testing would both promote public safety and
produce better candidates for military service. Personal
characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make
gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone
unsuitable for service in the militia. Cf. D.C. Code § 49-401
(excluding “idiots, lunatics, common drunkards, vagabonds,
paupers, and persons convicted of any infamous crime” from
militia duty). On the other hand, it does not follow that a person
who is unsuitable for militia service has no right to keep and
bear arms. A physically disabled person, for instance, might not be able to participate in even the most rudimentary organized
militia. But this person would still have the right to keep and
bear arms, just as men over the age of forty-five and women
would have that right, even though our nation has traditionally
excluded them from membership in the militia. As we have explained, the right is broader than its civic purpose. See
Volokh, supra, at 801-07.17
Sounds like they go a long stretch to say that gun registration is Constitutional because it’s necessary to know who is available for the Selective Service. And, with their “idiots, and lunatics” reference it sounds like the door is being left open for mental testing for anyone who would hunt yotes with an AR.
They also take the "reasonable restrictions" view somewhat from the case Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), which is quoted as
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is
not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of
concealed weapons;
Problem is that these "reasonable restrictions" do nothing to reasonably keep us safe, while they most certainly are an infringement. This court does comment on that finding by
in the Supreme
Court’s thin Second Amendment jurisprudence
Yet it seems they turn around and support the "reasonable restrictions" argument.
These are the ones that I’ve noticed so far, but I’d agree with BR that most of what the court has done is make such claims based on precedent.
Indeed, if they want to invoke history then the fig leaf of "reasonable restrictions" will fail them. Public meetings, polling places were all stricken down at one point in the common law.
