The Second Amendment absolutist position on SCOTUS

[billh58]

From a recent post by an absolutist:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd protects an individual right, subject to reasonable regulation."

Has it really, or are there (as with most SCOTUS rulings) other "considerations?" From the Heller decision (by Scalia):

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

And from the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up the Heller's findings and reasoning:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense&quot id. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628); and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[46]

So, like most right-wing positions, the absolutists have embellished what the court actually said to fit their own profit-motivated and anti-social ravings. Sensible gun control is by all means Constitutional, and the "right" to bear arms does not necessarily extend to public carry of lethal weapons just because I'm paranoid.

[Hoyt]

1. Even white winger Scalia limited his comments to "bearing" guns in the home.