Reader Input: Amendment has restrictions

-A +A

Recent letters re: the Second Amendment need some clarification, especially in light of those who mention the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.
There is, for example, no mention of the Second Amendment having been written to prevent government tyranny. There is, however, significant mention of the “core purpose” of the amendment. That is, defense: of self, family and property.
The decision specifically applied to handguns and generally, as the court stated, “The sorts of weapons protected are those sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s passage, not those useful in military service today.”
Significantly, the court noted “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” and detailed  numerous legal restrictions, including concealed-carry laws and regulating commercial sales.  
It also noted that their decision “... should not be taken to cast doubt on long standing-prohibitions.” They stated emphatically that “military-style weapons ... may be banned.”
It’s fair to ask: what further explanation is required for “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose”?
It’s more than a bit obvious that some writers who trumpet the Heller decision haven’t taken the time to read it.
Richard Bell, Grass Valley