AFP: A gun to protect my family [video]

[Joseph Hart]

The US Supreme Court recently ruled that individual Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms. In Virginia, the legislation even permits to carry a gun openly in the streets. AFPTV spends time with one gun owning Virginia family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNlBIgjqcMs
A gun to protect my family

[41mag]

The US Supreme Court recently ruled that individual Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms. In Virginia, the legislation even permits to carry a gun openly in the streets. AFPTV spends time with one gun owning Virginia family.

Actually the court ruled that individual Americans have the right to keep arms IF they jump the all the hoops that were put in place by the legislature.  Actually, the decision focused more on the governments "right" to infringe on who can bear what arms.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Property rights matter to me and guns are property. I like guns especially. Because I like guns, I can NOT consider Heller a "win" at ALL.

More of my opinion can be found at:

http://monochromementality.com/index.php/blog/show/Why-You-Cant-Win-With-Minarchy.html

</shameless-self-promotion>

[dalebert]

Actually the court ruled that individual Americans have the right to keep arms IF they jump the all the hoops that were put in place by the legislature.  Actually, the decision focused more on the governments "right" to infringe on who can bear what arms.

It's true. Sadly, the statements by the judges legitimized a lot of regulations on guns.

[KBCraig]

Far be it from me to talk like a lawyer, but it's important to remember what the court was actually ruling on. They were not ruling on, "Is the DC ban unconstitutional, and can the whole thing be thrown out?"

The only thing they were ruling on, was DC's denial of Dick Heller's application to register a handgun and be able to keep it readily available for self defense in his home. Nothing more.

In the "Held:" part (the only part that counts), the court stated on pp.2-3:
"3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.  The District's total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense.  Under any of the standards of scru-
tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster.  Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.  Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi-
trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. 
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

Heller didn't ask for anything other than that he be allowed to license his gun and keep it in his home. The courts couldn't rule on anything other than that request.