http://thinkprogress.org/...
If you take the time to read the SCOTUS opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller,
http://www.supremecourt.gov/...
Scalia's opinion is clear that reasonable weapons held in your home for self defense are protected. Scalia states, several times, that weapons used commonly for self defense held by law abiding citizens cannot be infringed. He speaks to State's rights to ban certain weaponry as outside the self defense opinion. I seriously doubt Scalia would rule that a hand held rocket launcher would fall within the parameters of self defense, even if they are considered "bearable" or something you could pick up and use. The ruling is clear that any weapons legally held are not for oppressive use against others. The opinion protects self-defense weapons used to protect yourself in your home. His final paragraph on the legality of having a gun, ready to use in your home is clear. He acknowledges that states, cities and other municipalities have the right to combat the problem of certain weapons. But he upholds the rights of Americans to protect themselves in their homes against threat of criminal activity, using hand guns.
"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered."
Scalia's opinion and the majority opinion of the SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Heller was that any citizen who is not insane or a convicted felon has the right to protect their home and life with a hand gun loaded and ready to use.
His lengthy opinion also supports the state's, right to ban certain firearms as outside the reasonable use for self-defense or hunting. It puts it squarely in the laps of the states, not the federal level of government. The Federal Government cannot infringe the right of citizens to bear arms, that is the Second Amendment. Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller restates this ruling. Certain states, cities and municipalities ban sawed off shotguns, and that is legal, some do not and that is legal as well. Scalia discusses that a hand held weapon allows the defender the opportunity to protect himself while dialing a telephone for the police. I don't think you can use a rocket launcher with one hand and dial 9-1-1 with the other, it takes two hands. I think the argument of the absurd is a distraction from the reality of protecting the Second Amendment rights of sane and legal citizens to own guns for protection in their homes and for hunting and the argument to ban them all because of the illegal use by persons like the shooter in Colorado or other felons. My constitutional rights to bear arms shall not be infringed upon as long as I remain a non-felon sane member of our society.
The shooter in Colorado was not constitutionally protected to use the weapons he owned in the manner that he used them, the violent use of the weapons he owned clearly is not protected under the Second Amendment. We do not have the right to act as the aggressor, we have only the right of self-protection.
IMHO, we should focus on the real issue at hand, how does a young man stockpile such weapons and ammunition without tripping a warning signal along the way? Should we look closer into our open commerce laws that allowed him to buy so many rounds off the internet? Should we take a hard look at why someone outside of law enforcement would require body armaments as he was wearing? All the years that I have hunted, I have never had a deer shoot at me... other hunters, yes, but not a deer. Why would a person need body armaments as he owned then? Should there be allowable restrictions on such items, like say, permits? Those doomsday enthusiasts who have stockpiles of food, weapons, protective gear and the such should have the right to collect them in their stores, but shouldn't it require a simple permit stating why they are being purchased? Shouldn't there be some sort of deterrence to stockpiling massive amounts of weapons, and explosives with some sort of regulation? I don't feel such restrictions impede my right to own hand guns, as 6,000 rounds of ammunition is over-kill in any book. I still have a box of rounds I purchased 20 years ago for my hunting rifle, as I only take one deer a season, and use one round to take it... I would quit hunting if I have to have 6,000 rounds to take a deer or wild hog during hunting season. I would just quit if I was that bad a shot. That said, I have a few extra boxes for that rifle in case my neighbor goes on a shooting spree, and I need more than a round or two to put him in the ground to protect my family.
We need to draw a line of reason between legal ownership of firearms and ammunition and the restriction of insane or tyrannical individual or groups who's only purpose is to overthrow our democratic way of government. I will not allow a fanatical group to hold up in a compound, arming themselves, for the sole purpose of taking away my rights at gunpoint. So I do support some regulation of weapons and ammunition to protect myself and my family from tyrannical fanatics who would use the second amendment as a shield for their criminal actions against myself or my family. But I am also restricted by that same second amendment to not act as the aggressor for any reason, my rights are for self-defense only.
Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion.