That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (“[G]overnment may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech . . . .”). Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms—which we have explained pre-existed, and therefore was preserved by, the Second Amendment—was subject to restrictions at common law. We take these to be the sort of reasonable regulations contemplated by the drafters of the Second Amendment
.
I am heartened by the reference to the first amendment. While there are restrictions on our right to free speech, these restrictions usually don't involve prior restraint. In other words, there is no law prohibiting you from speaking in a movie theater (no prior restraint). A classic example: if you needlessly yell "Fire! Fire!" when there is no fire, you have crossed the line and will be dealt with legally. The same standard should be applied to the ownership of firearms.
Most gun control laws involve prior restraint; that is, you cannot own/use a firearm. I believe these types of laws will surely fall.
There were also some intriguing references in the Court's decision regarding the use of firearms for defensive purposes.
It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s
prefatory clause announces the purpose for which
the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.
The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat
that the new Federal Government would destroy the
citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason
that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified
in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion
that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary
interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at
36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely
upon the prologue—but that can only show that selfdefense
had little to do with the right’s codification; it was
the central component of the right itself.
The court did not rule on general carrying of arms for self-defense. It's decision was narrowly confined to the DC ban on handguns for defense
in the home. The language used in the decision seems to indicate that they would look favorably on carrying for self-defense...at least 5 of them probably would.
How does the licensing law in Massachusetts look in light of Heller? Read on:
Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s
law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an
arbitrary and capricious manner
.
So, because I live in a green town I get one type of license. If I lived literally across the street (in my case), I would get a lesser license or no license at all. Sounds suspiciously arbitrary to me!!!
I also got a chuckle out of the majority's comments about the reasoning of the four dissenters. Basically, it called them asshats.
Is the decision everything I hoped it could be? No, but on the whole I am pleased. I am sure other cases will follow. Even more important now to keep "the changeling" out of the white house. I find McCain a little too liberal for my liking, but he beats the hell out of the alternative.