there is a case to which those who aggressively trumpet the importance of the 2nd amendment often point:
district of columbia vs. heller
they point to it because they believe it takes their side on the issue of individual gun ownership depending on membership of a "
well regulated militia". they believe the case proves that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. that's some pretty important case law, right? i mean it went to the u.s. supreme court! and the opinion was written by republican antonin scalia. so this case is important right? and
right right?
here's an excerpt from the opinion of the court. not the dissent - the opinion:
"
E.III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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 and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
that's a little hard to read with those inline footnotes so here is just the text:
"
E.III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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 and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
there it is.
"
...or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." it's right there in black and white in antonin scalia's opinion for the court.
so, for example,
background checks are constitutional.
"
curtail" means to "
reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on". the government could impose restrictions on the sale of arms which a pro-gun individual might characterize as severe curtailment but which the court could decide were perfectly legal based on the heller decision.
