Phatty
Member
The quote below is from a 3rd Circuit opinion that was released a few weeks ago on April 27 (United States v. Ross). Look how easily that appellate court pigeon-holes Heller.
Despite the fact that Heller declared the right to keep and bear arms a fundemental right, this appellate court brushes off the challenge to the machine gun ban without a hint of analysis by simply distinguishing Heller as only pertaining to the right to possess handguns for self-defense.Ross next argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which prohibits the possession of machine guns, is unconstitutional after District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Ross appears to misunderstand Heller. Heller was concerned with a statute that prohibited all possession of handguns by the public. Id. at 2788. The Heller majority focused on the history of gun possession as a means of self-defense, finding that the textual elements of the Second Amendment "guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." Id. at 2797. In doing so, the Court was careful to state that it did "not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation." Id. at 2799 (emphasis in original). In a further attempt to limit the effect of Heller to the right of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns for self-defense, the Court also cautioned that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" and noted the "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" Id. at 2816-17. Nothing in Heller supports Ross's challenge to the constitutionality of a statute criminalizing the possession of a machine gun.