Originally Posted by color of law
All she has to do is rely on Heller.
Most don't catch this little tidbit in Heller.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 2788, 2797
Part II “We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment.”
Go read it for yourself.
And I don't think anyone has ever used it in their defence. This is a finding of the court. License to poses a firearm is unconstitutional, in the home or out on the street, period.
good luck
In Florida, you're correct.
The Supreme Court in
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the
Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution.
This was clarified and confirmed in 2008, when the United States Supreme Court in
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared
“we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus,
Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.
More importantly,
Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed,’”
id. The Court reiterated at page 613,
“Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”
Now that the USSC has declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)) they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms in case of confrontation.
Additionally, the Supreme Court in
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”