LaEscopeta
Member
Looking a the Wikipedia entry on the Heller case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
...I came upon this:
"Since the June 2008 ruling, over 60 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.[62] These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.[62] Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.[62]
The courts have upheld every one of these laws as being constitutional. The basis for the lower court rulings is the paragraph near the end of the Heller ruling that states: "nothing in our opinion should 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 on the commercial sale of arms." Consistently since the Heller ruling the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: "What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories."[62]"
If this is true (it is Wikipedia) it seems despite the repealing of firearms bans in several cities and towns after Heller, and the U.S. v. Arzberger (can't lose firearms without due process) any snowball effect of Heller has not appeared yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
...I came upon this:
"Since the June 2008 ruling, over 60 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.[62] These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.[62] Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.[62]
The courts have upheld every one of these laws as being constitutional. The basis for the lower court rulings is the paragraph near the end of the Heller ruling that states: "nothing in our opinion should 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 on the commercial sale of arms." Consistently since the Heller ruling the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: "What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories."[62]"
If this is true (it is Wikipedia) it seems despite the repealing of firearms bans in several cities and towns after Heller, and the U.S. v. Arzberger (can't lose firearms without due process) any snowball effect of Heller has not appeared yet.
