I need a Constitutional attorney to walk me through the Heller decision. As a layman, it appears that even after the landmark DC v Heller decision, that much of common-sense gun control laws are still up to potentially be found legal within the context of the 2nd Amendment.
If so, it frustrates me that every reporter and every analyst in media uses "second Amendment rights" as a shorthand for "can't make any new gun control laws" without factually fleshing out all of the potential exceptions.
So...my understanding is that there are clearly areas where the decision allows for laws controlling guns to exist without violence to the newly interpreted 2nd Amendment. Such as laws against concealed carry, limits on who can own guns (felons, mentally ill, etc), limits on where guns can be legally carried (schools, churches, etc), and legal bans against unusual and dangerous weapons.
If my understanding is correct, that may be enough for those of us concerned about gun safety to work with -- even with the makeup of the current Supreme Court.
Certainly the ruling is silent on the issue of background checks and striving to close the gun show loophole and go with 100% background checks seems do-able. (Seems to me, if the court had a problem with background checks -- DC requires them -- we'd have heard about it in the ruling).
Dear friends, does an AR-15 seem to be an unusual or dangerous weapon to you? Yes, it's a matter of opinion. But, compared with our founding fathers' understanding of arms to be limited to single-shot, barrel loaded muskets, I think an AR15 could be understood to be unusual, dangerous, and okay to ban under Heller.
Assuming this is all true, I look forward to the day when members of our esteemed 4th Estate actually stop using "second amendment rights" as a phrase (it's from the NRA, so you know it's dishonest). And actually be purveyors of fact, even if it doesn't easily fit into a soundbyte. Till then, color me totally frustrated with the lot of them.
(Thanks for letting me get this off of my chest).