Effects of DC v Heller and subsequent case rulings on gun rights/modern firearms and accessories

[LiveLife]

The other thread got closed before I posted my response so I will start a new thread discussion pertinent to THR forum rules and advancement of RKBA.

All that Heller did was outlaw a 100% blanket gun ban, as existed previously in the District of Columbia.

I respectfully disagree.

In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court used rulings and statements made in DC v Heller to further expand the Second Amendment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

• "First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they 'were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment', but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects 'arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding'.

• "Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were 'dangerous per se at common law and unusual' because they were 'a thoroughly modern invention', but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller."

• "Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not 'readily adaptable to use in the military', but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that 'only those weapons useful in warfare' were protected by the Second Amendment."

Which affirmed just as the First Amendment protection extends to modern types of speech/communication like Email, Text, Online forum posts, etc. that did not exist in colonial times, Heller and Caetano expanded the Second Amendment protection to modern types of firearm that did not exist in colonial times.

So DC v Heller formed the foundation that not only did the Second Amendment remained pertinent, it expanded/clarified the use of firearm (including modern type) for individual self protection at home ("keep arms").

And if Young v Hawaii ends up in the Supreme Court, justices could further expand/clarify that the Second Amendment protection includes individual self protection outside the home for 50 state carry ("bear arms") - https://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

In Duncan v Becerra, Judge Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" and in "common use" and referenced Fyock v Sunnyvale which also stated large capacity magazines (15+ rounds per federal definition) qualify as "arms for purposes of the Second Amendment" and in "common use" - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

So if Duncan v Becerra ends up in the Supreme Court, justices could further expand/clarify that the Second Amendment protection includes modern type of ammunition storage devices called magazines without arbitrary capacity restrictions imposed by some states and rule such restrictions unconstitutional.

And it is my opinion that when firearm technology progresses to include energy weapons in the future and technology evolves to help elderly/disabled shooters with weaker muscle strength and less dexterity with innovative shooting accessories, the Supreme Court will rule the Second Amendment protection includes such "modern" firearms and shooting accessories as well.

Very applicable shooting accessory is the use of sound suppressors which is embraced by the European Union for hearing protection.

 

[AlexanderA]

Note that both sides are arguing about the dicta in the Heller case, not the actual ruling.