I was reading the SCOTUS decision on Heller, from the Supreme Court's website, supplied in PDF format, found here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
In reading through, I came to an interesting section, on page 19. It sounds as though the Supreme Court has already made the distinction that the 2nd Amendment secures the INDIVIDUAL right to CARRY ARMS ON THEIR PERSON FOR SELF DEFENSE!
"Opinion of the Court
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”
and much further down, on page 30:
"Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them— Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state . . . .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added). In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization."
Based on this, and the rest of the findings, isn't the groundwork already laid to make the argument that Maryland's restrictions are unconstitutional, and that anyone who is "not disapproved" to buy a handgun has the pre-existing, guarateed right to carry the handgun for self defense in case of confrontation?
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
In reading through, I came to an interesting section, on page 19. It sounds as though the Supreme Court has already made the distinction that the 2nd Amendment secures the INDIVIDUAL right to CARRY ARMS ON THEIR PERSON FOR SELF DEFENSE!
"Opinion of the Court
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”
and much further down, on page 30:
"Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them— Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state . . . .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added). In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization."
Based on this, and the rest of the findings, isn't the groundwork already laid to make the argument that Maryland's restrictions are unconstitutional, and that anyone who is "not disapproved" to buy a handgun has the pre-existing, guarateed right to carry the handgun for self defense in case of confrontation?
