Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: O’Malley Goes After Sanders: Bernie Doesn’t Support ‘Common Sense’ Gun Reforms [View all]lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)10. All?
Stevens dissent McDonald vs Chicago
Fourth, the Second Amendment differs in kind from the Amendments that surround it, with the consequence that its inclusion in the Bill of Rights is not merely unhelpful but positively harmful to petitioners claim. Generally, the inclusion of a liberty interest in the Bill of Rights points toward the conclusion that it is of fundamental significance and ought to be enforceable against the States. But the Second Amendment plays a peculiar role within the Bill, as announced by its peculiar opening clause. 39 Even accepting the Heller Courts view that the Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms disconnected from militia service, it remains undeniable that the purpose for which the right was codified was to prevent elimination of the militia. Heller , 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also United States v. Miller , 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) ( Second Amendment was enacted [w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces). It was the States, not private persons, on whose immediate behalf the Second Amendment was adopted. Notwithstanding the Heller Courts efforts to write the Second Amendment s preamble out of the Constitution, the Amendment still serves the structural function of protecting the States from encroachment by an overreaching Federal Government.
US vs Miller still stands, and upholds prohibition on sawed-off shotguns because they are not a militia-useful weapon.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
42 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
O’Malley Goes After Sanders: Bernie Doesn’t Support ‘Common Sense’ Gun Reforms [View all]
Cali_Democrat
Oct 2015
OP
In reality many background check laws or systems wouldnt stop assholes who havent
randys1
Oct 2015
#3
Yes, both opinions stated an individual right apart from militia eligibility or membership
pipoman
Oct 2015
#29
"and most of his statements have already been determined to be unconstitutional."
FSogol
Oct 2015
#33
Guns manufacturers sell extremely dangerous products and should be held to a higher standard.
DCBob
Oct 2015
#17
Yes, but I think the debate is about changing some laws to help stop the carnage.
DCBob
Oct 2015
#20
Do you support changing the laws to make gun manufacturers liable for their products?
DCBob
Oct 2015
#22
Guns are different. They are extremely dangerous devices which only function as weapons.
DCBob
Oct 2015
#26
Of course you cant "eliminate the possibility of guns being used for nefarious purposes".
DCBob
Oct 2015
#38
Then please explain why the maker of a totally legal product should be sued for use of that product
Armstead
Oct 2015
#39