Heller: Lets put this question to rest

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Lets put this to rest. I've seen this question asked in different threads, asking if the 2nd Amendment after the Heller decision protects "hunting" and "sporting purposes".

Some people say that because it said, "self-defense in the home", then it doesn't apply to hunting or sporting purposes.

Here is the entire quote from the Heller decision:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Hunting is a traditional lawful purpose. Thus, hunting is protected.


The last part, "such as...." means that "self-defense within the home" is merely an example of a traditional lawful purpose.


If I'm wrong, feel free to tell me. That's the way I interpreted it, though.


.

 

[GlowinPontiac]

I don't think you are wrong.

Hunting/target shooting/self defense are all traditional and lawful purposes.

 

[armoredman]

Sounds good to me. Will the courts agree?

 

[publius]

I think they'll agree as long as hunting is common. I think it is now our civic duty to buy different kinds of guns and buy every hunting license in our states and engage in every kind of hunting.

 

[publius]

From the DC appeals court ruling which was just affirmed in Heller:

The correspondence and political dialogue of the founding era indicate that arms were kept for lawful use in self-defense and hunting.

OK, so maybe we don't all have to go hunting, but we still have to buy lots of different guns, to ensure that they are "common."

edit:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia.

 

[SCKimberFan]

Traditional lawful purposes covers any every activity done with a gun, as long as it is lawful. IMHO.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia.

This is directly from the Heller decision?


.

 

[riverdog]

It's not verbatim. I can't find phrases from that quote in the decision. Probably somebody else's summary.

 

[Mastiff]

The guy said it was from the DC Appeals Court ruling that was affirmed by Heller.

 

[publius]

Yes, that's from the DC Appeals Court ruling, which was upheld by the SC in Heller.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


I'm sure that by affirming a decision, they can also not affirm certain parts of a previous decision, correct?

But I'm guessing that they affirmed Heller 100%, thus the above statement was affirmed?


.

 

[publius]

They could have invalidated part of the lower court ruling, but did not. The last sentence of the opinion:

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.



As our Kazakstanian friend says, "Very Nice."



.

 

[Poor East Texan]

I take Heller to mean that one day in the far off future SHOULD I be able to afford an AR I will be able to buy one to be somewhat likely.

Now if we could just get open carry here in Texas......

 

[Rugerlvr]

The OP is absolutely correct. SUCH AS means just one example of a lawful use.