Indeed! "The ABA continues to believe that our nation’s laws can be significantly strengthened by taking reasonable, commonsense steps that do not violate the constitutional right to bear arms as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller," Bellows writes.
The Second Amendment doesn’t protect military-style assault weapons, Bellows says, and she quotes Justice Antonin Scalia to back the assertion. Scalia wrote Heller, which found that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep handguns for protection within the home.
Some maintain that the Second Amendment should prevent regulation of assault weapons and high-capacity clips, Bellows notes in her remarks. The ABA, on the other hand, believes that “the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment must be understood to have some limits.” Second Amendment rights, she said,
must be balanced against the need to protect citizens from especially dangerous weapons. Bellows says this recognition has supported regulation of fully automatic “machine guns” since the 1930s.
She quotes a portion
from Scalia’s Heller opinion in which he interprets a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision as giving Second Amendment protection to weapons “in common use at the time” of its adoption. According to Scalia,
“We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
Quoting Scalia, ABA president says Second Amendment rights have limits - News - ABA Journal
It's really odd how people are SOOO frightened of guns, when it is criminals wielding them who are the problem.
