General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: H2O Man Survey #39 [View all]CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)From the law library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
"In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right."
This ruling went somewhat counter to earlier 19th century ruling of the court:
Again from the law library of Congress:
"In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.
However, I think the key to even the 2008 ruling is the phrase, "U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense" and in this case dealt with banning hand guns and having to keep firearms in unusable conditions. So it looks like the court is yet to draw the line on what an individuals need for self defense and what they don't.
Going to extremes I don't think that the Supreme Court would strike down a state law which restricted the right of individuals to own nuclear weapons or even fully functional Abrams M1A1 tanks for self defense purposes. However an open question remains as to whether the Court would rule sometime in the future that large ammo capacity assault weapons are allowable for self defense purposes.