Would the recent Supreme Court on handguns effect...?

Question

places where handguns are legal? For example in CT you can buy a handgun but only after going thru an intensive safey program and you MUST have a carry permit. They don't make it easy here costs $$$ too.

Answer 1

The Supreme Court decision established that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to own and keep handguns and long guns in the home for self-defense.  The decision also explicitly held that some forms of gun control are constitutional...but the decision did not actually go through all the various forms of gun control and decide which were or were not constitutional.  The decision only held that DC could not require a license to own a handgun and then refuse to issue anypone such a license, and it also held that DC could not require all long guns to be kept dissassembeled or bound with a trigger lock.  There will be a lot more litigation and more court decisions in the future that will determine the fate of other forms of gun control.

If CT allows most or all adults (who aren't convicted felons or mentally ill) to qualify for the carry permit, I strongly suspect the Supreme Court would uphold the permit and safety class requirements.  

As for the additional costs imposed upon a firearm purchaser, it would depend on whether the costs imposed were so high as to prevent a significant number of people from exercising their 2nd Amendment right.  A cost of even a few hundred dollars would not do so...but a cost of thousands would probably be held unconstitutional.

Answer 2

The decision stated that the second amendment does allow a person the right to keep and bear arms. BUT, as you saw, the liberals immediatley started mis quoting the decision saying that it only gave the right to have the firearm "IN THE HOME". Which means that this fight is far from over, and with a rabid anti gun politician like Obama poised to be the next president, you can bet that the anti gunners are already planning the next round of attacks against the second amendment. I have already heard such foolish things as "Ok, maybe it say's you can have a firearm, but it doesn't say anything about ammunition for it", and "well nothing says that the firearm has to work" and  other such stupid comments. My advice? buy your firearms ammunition, magazines and supplies  before the liberals take office. Remember that the "assault weapons ban" that Clinton pushed thru, is not gone, all it takes is a signature by the president to re inact it, and guess who is in favor of doing that? And that means no high capacity magazines again, and magazines that cost $12-$20  now, will shoot back up to $100-150 like they did under the bill the last time.

shoot safe

Answer 3

The jist of the decision seems to be that the DC law was so restrictive as to make self-defense impossible, and that crossed the line. How restrictive is too restrictive? That will come with further court cases in the future. My guess would be that "shall issue" laws will eventually become the norm, but I wouldn't want to be the one to have to set the precedent.

Answer 4

The 2nd Amendment never said anything about licenses, Permits, Fees, concealed carry, open carry, special training, gun free zones, post offices, government buildings etc.* " the Right to Keep and BEAR ARMS."...> Emphasis on the WORD BEAR...** Our gun rights are far from not being subverted, compromised, violated, ignored, abused, and DENIED here in America by the Federal, State, County or Local Governments.**  2nd Amendment means what it says, NO Infringement Whatsoever.* Will they ever live up to the full meaning of the 2nd Amendment, because they are not, and have not lived up to it YET?** The 2nd Amendment did not specify that you can only BEAR them at Home, it Meant Anywhere, by Anyone, at Anytime, with NO Infringement.*

Answer 5

The places allowed to carry won't change much if any. In CT you will still have to meet the requirements to possess the handgun. You have the right if you choose to do so.

Victory depends on what you want to achieve. Hiller or whatever his name was was not permitted by DC law to have a handgun at home. That is unconstitutional, as an American he has the right once permit requirements are met to have a handgun at home for protection. In his home, in your home, in my home, besides felons and so-forth, there is the victory.

Answer 6

The Supremes made it clear that this decision had absolutely no bearing on any other ban or restriction in place

I also supported the states right to create licensing scheme to control gun ownership

All it said was that the state had to issue the plaintiff a handgun license that allowed him to carry a gun in his home

They did not even require that the state issue carry permits

This thing is no where near the resounding victory that the NRA is trying to paint it as