This is a great ruling, but I do see an issue - I wish this was a ruling against a state's ban on weapons. Why? Because the 2A has not yet been incorporated as applying to the states as most of the BOR has been. DC is a federal district, not a state. It is alrady clear the BOR applies against the feds.
Read up on the "incorporation doctrine"/"doctrine of incorporation" and 14A and you'll soon see the potential problem.
It is great that the court recognized 2A as a fundamental right, but the question remains whether or not the Supremes would 1. uphold this reversal so that the people in DC can defend themselves and 2. If the Supremes agree that it is an indivicual right, whether or not it is "fundamental" enough to apply against the states.
The "incorporation doctrine" is the nemesis here. Mind you this is a power the black robe royalty vested upon itself and does NOT appear in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court basically claimed the power to decide which rights are fundamental enough that they must also apply to the states.
Ever wonder why 1A applies against the states when 1A clearly states "CONGRESS shall make no law....."? B/C the Supreems declared it was fundamental.
Sorry...should read:
"It is great that the court recognized 2A as an INDIVIDUAL right..."
Wrong. That was made from whole cloth by a judge. It is no part of Constitutional law. In fact, it creates new law, something the judiciary has no power to do.
Here's the operative part of the original legislation:
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
This clearly is all the "incorporation" the Amendments need to be part of the "Supreme Law of the Land", the "laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding", and "the Judges of every State shall be bound thereby".
Keep in mind that even if the SCOTUS finds that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, that will not automatically nullify all gun control laws.
The 1st amendment protects free speech, but there are limits to that right, including the infamous shouting 'fire' in a crowded building, and banning 'hate speech' (grrrrrr!)
This should allow all gun control laws, such as so-called 'assault weapon bans' to be challenged in court, but each one will have to be individually adjudicated.
I always noticed that "shall not be infringed" had no target. It was not "Congress shall not infringe" or "States shall not infringe." It is a blanket statement that no such infringement can occur within the United States of America. Plain text to me says no incorporation is needed, as it always applied.
I think this is a great day, however, I am afraid to go outside. The pig that are flying over this place may not have spincter control.