Once in a great while, politicians manage to do something right.

This is a good start. Legalizing concealed carry then allowing it to be banned in certain public places is a little silly.

But Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, said he was worried about the possible combination of drinking and weapons on college campuses.

"College boys who round up 25 opossums half drunk can do amazingly interesting things with fireworks, bottles of gasoline, with all kinds of interesting devices," Kelly said.

Wow. College life in Missouri sounds exceedingly lame.

eqtworld: It does say "keep and bear arms" not "keep arms unloaded and locked away where they will do you no good"

It also says something about a "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" not "in a holster on my body during History class should a government takeover occur during mid-terms".

FTFA:
"Missouri's college students should be allowed to learn and exchange ideas in an environment free from the threat of concealed guns," University of Missouri System President Gary Forsee said in a news release Thursday. "It is hard to imagine that such a proposal could gain support given the magnitude of gun-related tragedies experienced on college campuses across the country."

This guy's such an idiot. When the second half of his statement disproves the first half of his statement, you wonder two things: a) does he do this a lot? and b) how did he get to be SYSTEM PRESIDENT OF THE UofM???

Idiots, all around.

Most college students are under 21 and would not be old enough to get a permit. The ones who are old enough are alittle more mature, and only a small percentage of those of age would actually carry. The ones who go through the trouble of doing things by the book are not the ones you need to worry about.

And newsflash to the reporter- The hardest drinking in college takes place in houses and apartments in the areas surrounding the campus. Many of those drunken fratboys you are so worried about are already armed.

eqtworld: It does say "keep and bear arms" not "keep arms unloaded and locked away where they will do you no good"

Pretty much every legal scholar, including the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that you are going towards isnt how it works or how it was intended.

While in Heller the Supreme Court did rule that the government cant make you keep a gun disassembled or locked up with a trigger lock, they did limit the self defense stuff to within the home and strongly stated that the government does have the right to keep firearms out of specific public places.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: The ones who go through the trouble of doing things by the book are not the ones you need to worry about.

The kid that shot up Virginia Tech bought his guns legally.

nothing better than arming a bunch of 18 years olds experiencing their first alcohol.

/hey, I bet I'm not too drunked to hit that signstop!

YEAH EFFETE COLLEGE PROFESSORS

LIKE THOSE MENTIONED IN THE ARTIC- OH WAIT

EFFEMINATE!

GAY!

LIBERAL!

COMMIES!


FUUCUUCUUUCUCUUCCCCCK

So, wait, the universities aren't allowed to decide? That's kind of farked up. I have no problem with conceal carry at a university, but if the university doesn't want to allow it, it should not be forced to allow guns onto the property.

bulldg4life: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: The ones who go through the trouble of doing things by the book are not the ones you need to worry about.

The kid that shot up Virginia Tech bought his guns legally.

Jiverly Wong was legal too.

bulldg4life: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: The ones who go through the trouble of doing things by the book are not the ones you need to worry about.

The kid that shot up Virginia Tech bought his guns legally.

He did not have a concealed carry permit, and was breaking the law by keeping his guns in his dorm room

did i do this right?

RemyDuron: So, wait, the universities aren't allowed to decide? That's kind of farked up. I have no problem with conceal carry at a university, but if the university doesn't want to allow it, it should not be forced to allow guns onto the property.

Private schools get to decide. State schools have to follow what the legislature says.

eqtworld: bulldg4life: eqtworld: It does say "keep and bear arms" not "keep arms unloaded and locked away where they will do you no good"

It also says something about a "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" not "in a holster on my body during History class should a government takeover occur during mid-terms".

Better to be an armed minute man than an unarmed one

yes but how is a handgun going to be conducive to a well regulated militia for the protection of the state? On top of that the second ammendment doesn't say that the right to bear arms cannot be regulated, only that it exists. In fact, it says that it should be in the context of a well regulated militia. The bill of rights only says you have the right to own a gun, not that that right is unconditional or that that right exists for every kind of gun everywhere. so stfu about the second ammendment, its completely irrelevant to your irrational fear and insecurity.

bulldg4life: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: The ones who go through the trouble of doing things by the book are not the ones you need to worry about.

The kid that shot up Virginia Tech bought his guns legally.

Yeah, but even with a law in place, I doubt there would've been any charges pressed in the matter.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: Private schools get to decide. State schools have to follow what the legislature says.

Eh, I guess the legislature is within their rights, but I'd still leave it up to the schools. Maybe make the schools run a referendum in the student body and faculty.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: He did not have a concealed carry permit, and was breaking the law by keeping his guns in his dorm room

But he went through the trouble of purchasing one gun a month, went through federal background checks, provided multiple forms of identification and was cleared upon gun purchase to take the guns home.

The "the ones that follow the rules aren't the problem" is a HUGE gray area that is a silly argument.

drsteel: FTFA:
"Missouri's college students should be allowed to learn and exchange ideas in an environment free from the threat of concealed guns," University of Missouri System President Gary Forsee said in a news release Thursday. "It is hard to imagine that such a proposal could gain support given the magnitude of gun-related tragedies experienced on college campuses across the country."

This guy's such an idiot. When the second half of his statement disproves the first half of his statement, you wonder two things: a) does he do this a lot? and b) how did he get to be SYSTEM PRESIDENT OF THE UofM???

Idiots, all around.

There is no contradiction. The first part is talking about concealed weapons. And in context its pretty clear that he is talking about legal concealed weapons, although he doesnt say that explicitely. The recent Michigan shooting was with a shotgun. Not a concealed weapon. The VTech guy did use smaller weapons, but he walked in with a backpack full of gear and ammo, so thats hardly whats being talked in the first part either.

The guy is nervous about young people in a very stressful time of their lives that are frequently complicated with drugs and alcohol being able to walk around with concealed weapons and he is not able to do anything about it. That seems to be a reasonable concern to me.

In the wake of recent campus shooting tragedies, I for one say this is exactly what we need. Now, should a student on a Missouri campus see what appears to them as a person carrying a concealed weapon, they will no longer know whether this sight should be reported. Nope, rather they will get to debate, "Is this a sociopath intent on causing grievous harm and death to those around him, or just some dude compensating for his small penis?" Kudos, Missouri.

Excellent point, KraziKarl.

If you unilaterally, unquestioningly support college students being able to freely carry weapons on campus, you've not been to one lately. I've seen hundreds of situations which I guarantee would have resulted in a shooting, were the weapons available.

Not that I support unilateral disarming of campuses, either. It's just an issue of immense size that I think a lot of people haven't thought out.

Also we STILL do not have a society that teaches safety and temperance with guns.

quierosteak: eqtworld: bulldg4life: eqtworld: It does say "keep and bear arms" not "keep arms unloaded and locked away where they will do you no good"

It also says something about a "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" not "in a holster on my body during History class should a government takeover occur during mid-terms".

Better to be an armed minute man than an unarmed one

yes but how is a handgun going to be conducive to a well regulated militia for the protection of the state? On top of that the second ammendment doesn't say that the right to bear arms cannot be regulated, only that it exists. In fact, it says that it should be in the context of a well regulated militia. The bill of rights only says you have the right to own a gun, not that that right is unconditional or that that right exists for every kind of gun everywhere. so stfu about the second ammendment, its completely irrelevant to your irrational fear and insecurity.

We arm our servicemembers with handguns as sidearms, that is why the handguns are explicitly covered by the second amendment and why the DC handgun ban was struck down. In the days of the founding fathers, well regulated meant closer to "well armed" than it did to "regulations" as we see them today.

Nobody said that we should be able to have "any" gun we want. It just seems like the targets of the bans being proposed around the country (handguns, "assault weapons") are specifically the type intended to be protected by the constitution.

It isn't irrational fear when the president and his top appointees PROMISE to ban these types of guns, and it is not reassuring to know that the plans have been put on the "backburner".

OMG Socialism brings up a good point (well, sans the compensation bit which I dont really agree with):

Before if you saw a gun running around with a gun on campus you knew stuff was about to go down and called the police pronto. Now you do nothing until the guy whips it out and starts shooting. This doesnt seem very helpful for safety purposes to me.

Beaver95: Welcome to libertarianism.

Libertarians are mostly for things like this. Less gun regulation = good. At least that's my experience with libertarians. I'm a far left, anti-gun control person myself.

Personally I think the perfect solution is to require everyone to take a written test in gun safety and be observed at a shooting range in order to get a license to keep a gun at home. I don't think that's too outrageous. I mean, no one really has a pure constitutional view on things. No one thinks tanks, bombers, and bombs should be available to the general public, so we admit that the "right to bear arms" is not a completely unregulated right.

RemyDuron: Beaver95: Welcome to libertarianism.

Libertarians are mostly for things like this. Less gun regulation = good. At least that's my experience with libertarians. I'm a far left, anti-gun control person myself.

Personally I think the perfect solution is to require everyone to take a written test in gun safety and be observed at a shooting range in order to get a license to keep a gun at home. I don't think that's too outrageous. I mean, no one really has a pure constitutional view on things. No one thinks tanks, bombers, and bombs should be available to the general public, so we admit that the "right to bear arms" is not a completely unregulated right.

You weren't in the other thread, I take it. Some of them honestly want access to anything they can afford, up to and including nuclear ICBMs

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: We arm our servicemembers with handguns as sidearms, that is why the handguns are explicitly covered by the second amendment and why the DC handgun ban was struck down. In the days of the founding fathers, well regulated meant closer to "well armed" than it did to "regulations" as we see them today.

Nobody said that we should be able to have "any" gun we want. It just seems like the targets of the bans being proposed around the country (handguns, "assault weapons") are specifically the type intended to be protected by the constitution.

It isn't irrational fear when the president and his top appointees PROMISE to ban these types of guns, and it is not reassuring to know that the plans have been put on the "backburner".

No its not. Read the Heller decision and thats not even close to what it said. It said people had the right to have firearms for "traditionally lawful" purposes. It specifically states that these rights ARE NOT CONNECTED to the military. Go back and read the decision and dont make stuff up.

The president didnt promise to go nuts on gun regulation and ran as a moderate on the issue. If you dont think that its reassuring that he president and all his people have said EXACTLY NOTHING on the subject is reassuring you are just delusional.

The silence from the White House has been DEAFENING given that there have been 58 shooting deaths in the last month (true btw). If you dont find it reassuring that hes not going to do much on the issue when he says nothing after a veritable epidemic of gun related deaths, including the worst police shooting ever in Pittsburgh with an AK47 I just dont know what to say.

bulldg4life: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: He did not have a concealed carry permit, and was breaking the law by keeping his guns in his dorm room

But he went through the trouble of purchasing one gun a month, went through federal background checks, provided multiple forms of identification and was cleared upon gun purchase to take the guns home.

The "the ones that follow the rules aren't the problem" is a HUGE gray area that is a silly argument.

I was speaking in the context of concealed carry. The kid who legally packs in his history class is not a threat. If someone wants to bring a gun to shoot up a school, the fact that it is illegal to carry there will not deter them. It might actually make them feel safer knowing that their victims will be disarmed.

And knowing what we know now, Cho might have obtained the gun "legally" but only because of a flaw in the way the mental health records were reported. He "shouldn't" have been able to legally get a gun.

eqtworld: You think the being prepared for something that has been happening all over the nation for years is irrational?

How much good did it do for the cops in Pittsburgh to have a firearm on them? Not much at all - they are dead to a guy with an arsenal of legally purchased guns including an AK47.

If you want to make a safety argument you have to address the safety of you having a gun vs the ability of a nutjob to legally get and carry a gun wherever he wants (except for some government buildings). I think thats a tough argument to make. I'm not arguing for total gun control because I do support guns for recreational purposes and HOME defense purposes, and maybe even very specific carry purposes, but I think you really have to question the rationality of thinking that everybody having a gun Wild West style (and when it comes to safety, the Wild West doesnt exactly come to mind) makes things safe. I dont think that you are going to get data to back up you on that one.

I don't think Cho's high score is going to get beaten in Missouri anytime soon.

I attended two Missouri colleges. In that time, I saw two frats burn down with one death involved, students drinking themselves to death, and invasions by drunken Jayhawks fans. The kicker though was when a frat across from my building got the bright idea to load a cast iron cannon with fireworks and light it. The resulting explosion sent a chunk of iron into a building across the street and nearly killed some Chinese students living there.

This is, in short, a VERY BAD IDEA.

Stop mass murder by making it easier to kill people

/Makes sense to me
//Unintended consequences be damned

Krazikarl: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: We arm our servicemembers with handguns as sidearms, that is why the handguns are explicitly covered by the second amendment and why the DC handgun ban was struck down. In the days of the founding fathers, well regulated meant closer to "well armed" than it did to "regulations" as we see them today.

Nobody said that we should be able to have "any" gun we want. It just seems like the targets of the bans being proposed around the country (handguns, "assault weapons") are specifically the type intended to be protected by the constitution.

It isn't irrational fear when the president and his top appointees PROMISE to ban these types of guns, and it is not reassuring to know that the plans have been put on the "backburner".

No its not. Read the Heller decision and thats not even close to what it said. It said people had the right to have firearms for "traditionally lawful" purposes. It specifically states that these rights ARE NOT CONNECTED to the military. Go back and read the decision and dont make stuff up.

The president didnt promise to go nuts on gun regulation and ran as a moderate on the issue. If you dont think that its reassuring that he president and all his people have said EXACTLY NOTHING on the subject is reassuring you are just delusional.

The silence from the White House has been DEAFENING given that there have been 58 shooting deaths in the last month (true btw). If you dont find it reassuring that hes not going to do much on the issue when he says nothing after a veritable epidemic of gun related deaths, including the worst police shooting ever in Pittsburgh with an AK47 I just dont know what to say.

Maybe you need to read the decision. They overturned the ban because it was too broad, banning a segment of weapons that are both "common" and have a purpose in military service. They mention "traditionally lawful purposes" in the context of other things you are allowed to do with the weapons, but make it clear that the term "militia" does add meaning to the amendment.

The president promised a permanent assault weapons ban stricter than the last one throughout his campaign, and his attorney general has promised it since the inauguration. The only reason they have not pushed it is they used alot of political capital on the "stimulus" bills they passed and they no longer have the support in congress.

The fact that they have stopped beating the wardrums about it and put it on the backburner is not reassuring. It is still firmly in the agenda, they are just waiting for an opportunity when they will be able to get away with it.

bulldg4life: eqtworld: It does say "keep and bear arms" not "keep arms unloaded and locked away where they will do you no good"

It also says something about a "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" not "in a holster on my body during History class should a government takeover occur during mid-terms".

Which, to everybody who can read the English language, means that militias are good, therefore people should have arms, standing armies are bad, and no regulation of private arms ownership is necessary - only training for the militia.

The kid who legally packs in his history class is not a threat.

Give that 21 year old kid a few shots and see how safe he is with a weapon on him... when's the last time you experienced the stupidity that happens on a college campus. Normally rational people can turn to idiots at age 18.

It might actually make them feel safer knowing that their victims will be disarmed.

People like Cho don't care about their own safety. They're there to go out in a blaze of glory. For all the tough talk I heard from some of my friends after VT happened of "if I was there and was allowed to have a gun, I could have ended it" having a handgun isn't going to make your reaction to a situation like VT any different when the killer is truly a crazed lunatic. You're going to get the fark out of his way the best you can. In the chaos of the situation you're just as likely to take out a bystander than the aggressor.

I'm thinking back to my college days ... remembering what it was like to live in a community of people aged 18 - 22, most of them living away from home (and adult supervision) for the first time in their lives, many of us experimenting with drugs and alcohol in truly mindblowing quantities and combinations, and I think to myself, "if only we had all been armed!"

20/20 If I Only Had a Gun experiment.

The day after the Virginia Tech shooting, Oklahoma shut down the campus because of a potential gunman who turned out to be a student carrying an umbrella on a rainy day.

What's the worst that could happen? It's not like they'll burn down a town or something.
MIZ

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: Maybe you need to read the decision. They overturned the ban because it was too broad, banning a segment of weapons that are both "common" and have a purpose in military service. They mention "traditionally lawful purposes" in the context of other things you are allowed to do with the weapons, but make it clear that the term "militia" does add meaning to the amendment.

The president promised a permanent assault weapons ban stricter than the last one throughout his campaign, and his attorney general has promised it since the inauguration. The only reason they have not pushed it is they used alot of political capital on the "stimulus" bills they passed and they no longer have the support in congress.

The fact that they have stopped beating the wardrums about it and put it on the backburner is not reassuring. It is still firmly in the agenda, they are just waiting for an opportunity when they will be able to get away with it.

No, I'm not going to just let you make things up.

From the holding summary:

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You go find the part that you claim exists that make ANY RELATIONSHIP at all between the military and citizens so that you can make your innane "because the military does it the Supreme Court said that it was reasonable for civilians to do it too" argument. We will wait, but you wont be able to find it because it doesnt exist. Its just not the logic that they used in the decision.

They stated that banning all handguns was a no go because:

"amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense"

No military does it so civilians can do it there.

And you cant do trigger locks because:

"makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense"

Once again, no military there either. Its a reasonable self defense with a weapon commonly used for lawful purposes argument like I said.

Anybody who thinks that Obama has been beating wardrums on gun control and just backed off them is just being delusional.

moriarty23: What's the worst that could happen? It's not like they'll burn down a town or something.
MIZ

hee hee

Mentat: The kicker though was when a frat across from my building got the bright idea to load a cast iron cannon with fireworks and light it. The resulting explosion sent a chunk of iron into a building across the street and nearly killed some Chinese students living there.

Longtime Lurker: The kid who legally packs in his history class is not a threat.

Give that 21 year old kid a few shots and see how safe he is with a weapon on him... when's the last time you experienced the stupidity that happens on a college campus. Normally rational people can turn to idiots at age 18.

It might actually make them feel safer knowing that their victims will be disarmed.

People like Cho don't care about their own safety. They're there to go out in a blaze of glory. For all the tough talk I heard from some of my friends after VT happened of "if I was there and was allowed to have a gun, I could have ended it" having a handgun isn't going to make your reaction to a situation like VT any different when the killer is truly a crazed lunatic. You're going to get the fark out of his way the best you can. In the chaos of the situation you're just as likely to take out a bystander than the aggressor.

Just because someone is in college does not excuse them drinking while they are carrying. That is already illegal. Plenty of college kids drink and own guns, they just don't drink while they are handling or carrying them.

And your second point is purely opinion.

farking stupid idea. Good job Missouri, now maybe you can get that Birth Certificate bill passed that you want so much.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: Just because someone is in college does not excuse them drinking while they are carrying. That is already illegal. Plenty of college kids drink and own guns, they just don't drink while they are handling or carrying them.

And your second point is purely opinion.

The point is that College Student is not exactly synonymous with "good judgement". If you have a bunch of college kids who can legally carry firearms, you are going to have a bunch of college kids who will carry those firearms drunk/on drugs whether or not that is illegal.

The second point is backed up by psychological studies - the kind of people who do murder suicides (which is usually what these things turn out to be) or mass shootings arent exactly afraid of dying. That would fall into the "DUH" category.

From TFA:

and also has the effect of disarming dorm residents when they go off campus property, since they have no place to store the defensive weapons when they're back on campus.

Not true. Tulane allowed students who owned firearms to store them at TUPD headquarters, and they were allowed to check them out if they were headed off campus.

Sadly, one student checked out his shotgun then went back to his dorm and killed himself.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: Just because someone is in college does not excuse them drinking while they are carrying. That is already illegal. Plenty of college kids drink and own guns, they just don't drink while they are handling or carrying them.

If you believe that most college kids give a rat's ass about what's "illegal" to do while drinking, your college experience was much different from mine.

In fact, it's the nexus between guns and alcohol that is one of the main reasons I came to embrace the idea of reasonable restrictions on firearms. After working at a gun club and having guys come out of the bar, grab their shotguns, and casually point loaded weapons at me; after seeing every damn highway sign in the state of Idaho with .22 holes in them; after seeing the meatwagon come down to the Cotton Club (three blocks from my childhood home) once every six or eight months to haul away the body of the mos recent guy to get gunned down by a jealous cowboy, I realized that waaaaaay too many people in my community were packing heat while drinking and it started to make me a little nervous. Then, years later, I saw the Vice President get drunk and shoot an old man in the face, and I realized that it wasn't just an Idaho thing any more.

Krazikarl: i>

Link (new window)
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.

Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS' case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgmentin the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men's federal indictment for transporting an unregistered
short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court's basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants
were "bear[ing] arms" not "for . . . military purposes" but for "nonmilitary use," post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled
shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
50 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). "Certainly,"the Court continued, "it is not within judicial notice thatthis weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment
or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation
of the content of the right.

What I was referencing was the mention and clarification of the previous Miller case in Heller opinion. Following that logic pistols, "assault weapons", and limited machine guns shouls be protected.

You need to read the whole opinion, and use your brain as far as the original intent of the amendment, and how that translates to modern times.

BMulligan: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: Just because someone is in college does not excuse them drinking while they are carrying. That is already illegal. Plenty of college kids drink and own guns, they just don't drink while they are handling or carrying them.

If you believe that most college kids give a rat's ass about what's "illegal" to do while drinking, your college experience was much different from mine.

In fact, it's the nexus between guns and alcohol that is one of the main reasons I came to embrace the idea of reasonable restrictions on firearms. After working at a gun club and having guys come out of the bar, grab their shotguns, and casually point loaded weapons at me; after seeing every damn highway sign in the state of Idaho with .22 holes in them; after seeing the meatwagon come down to the Cotton Club (three blocks from my childhood home) once every six or eight months to haul away the body of the mos recent guy to get gunned down by a jealous cowboy, I realized that waaaaaay too many people in my community were packing heat while drinking and it started to make me a little nervous. Then, years later, I saw the Vice President get drunk and shoot an old man in the face, and I realized that it wasn't just an Idaho thing any more.

Most college kids don't care about breaking drinking laws. Most DO care about breaking gun laws. There is a difference. These students are already of legal drinking age, it is about being in possession of a gun while drinking/under the influence, and has more to do with the gun than the drinking.

/Knows guns and drugs/alcohol don't mix

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: What I was referencing was the mention and clarification of the previous Miller case in Heller opinion. Following that logic pistols, "assault weapons", and limited machine guns shouls be protected.

You need to read the whole opinion, and use your brain as far as the original intent of the amendment, and how that translates to modern times.

Ah, so now you are switching from Heller to Miller. Fine.

Because the federal courts have repeatedly and consistently smacked down your argument since then. Miller was in 1939, and since then, as you well know, the Federal Courts have repeatedly and consistently ruled that bans on things like assault weapons (including ones commonly used in military service like the M16) are perfectly legal.

All Heller said about Miller is:

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

The SCOTUS just called your argument wrongheaded.

And you cant possibly get around this argument because you damn well know that this is what courts have ruled concerning Miller.

Krazikarl: While in Heller the Supreme Court did rule that the government cant make you keep a gun disassembled or locked up with a trigger lock, they did limit the self defense stuff to within the home and strongly stated that the government does have the right to keep firearms out of specific public places.

Actually, I don't think they addressed it at all. Rather, saying that the Heller ruling didn't touch on the issue of other federal firearms regulation.

Don't care enough today to look it up for certain.