Scalia, in writing for the majority opinion that ruled the DC gun ban was unconstitutional, noted that the ruling does not mean that 2nd amendment rights cant be limited or restricted.
Quote:
Scalia wrote that the right he was announcing, as with other constitutional rights, "is not unlimited." The ruling should not "cast doubt," he added, on restrictions such as barring possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill or forbidding carrying arms near schools or in government buildings. He also indicated that the use of certain types of weapons could be restricted without running afoul of the Second Amendment.
But the majority did not define a standard of review for judging which restrictions are or are not constitutional, and it did not specifically rule that the Second Amendment applies to the states -- a step that the Court has taken in the past to ensure that other parts of the Bill of Rights limit state as well as federal restrictions on individuals.
Law.com - Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban
|
But I cant believe we are having another discussion about the 2nd amendment again...rehashing the same old arguments for and against.
I would like to see the discussion focus on the tactics of the NRA of spreading false and misleading information that led the OP to suggest that "If you go by Obama's voting record, he is as anti-gun as they come."