So, I am wondering if this is the first individual right the Court has declared absolute? All the other rights have some sort of limitation on them: speech, assembly, equal protection, due process, right to jury, unreasonable search, etc. all can be cast aside under certain circumstances. But, as Breyer points out in his dissent, the Court appears to hold the right to own a gun as completely absolute. If a compelling state interest cannot be shown for the prevention of death, the Court is saying there are no possible compelling interests. Thus, according to this Court, the right to own a gun is now more absolute than all other Consitutional protections, including freedom of speech, religion, association, etc.

People who are convicted felons or adjudicated mentally unstable can be prevented from (legally) owning firearms.

The other rights you mention -- speech, religion, etc. -- cannot be infringed just because they might make our society a more dangerous place to live.

This is kind of the point of having freedoms in the first place. The state cannot say, "We have a compelling interest in preventing death, so nobody gets to own a firearm. Oh, by the way, Islam is now illegal because it incites its followers to Jihad. All violent movies are banned. Books, too. Can't be too careful, ya know."

Arlington:

People who are convicted felons or adjudicated mentally unstable can be prevented from (legally) owning firearms.

The other rights you mention -- speech, religion, etc. -- cannot be infringed just because they might make our society a more dangerous place to live.

This is kind of the point of having freedoms in the first place. The state cannot say, "We have a compelling interest in preventing death, so nobody gets to own a firearm. Oh, by the way, Islam is now illegal because it incites its followers to Jihad. All violent movies are banned. Books, too. Can't be too careful, ya know."

...but their practices can be "infringed"by countervailing laws. Exhibit A: the recent polygamy sect raid and subsequent arrests. Those folks claimed simple voluntary adherence to their religion; didn't matter.

The first poster was correct; no rights are absolute and unqualifiable.

The majority opinion did not say that the right was absolute. It allowed as how restrictions as to time and place for public carry were probably constitutional. It said that "reasonable" gun control measures would probably pass muster. It upheld the banning of guns for the insane and felons. Even Chicago's draconian restrictions will probably pass muster by the Heller decision.

It says it the opinion that the right is subject to restrictions? What more do you want, a different decision because you don't agree with the one handed down?

Except, as Breyer says, the prevention of death is the most compelling interest a state could possibly find, and the Court here does not allow it. So, even though the majority says there are limits, this Court would never recognize one (and the restrictions on mentally ill are not limits, but rather outright, arbitrary denial of the right to certain citizens).

The Court does find that the Second Amendment is rooted in self-defense, although I don't think it uses the term "prevention of death," and it's an individual interest, not a state one. But it expressly noted that that interest can be overridden in various circumstances. In fact, the majority opinion preemptively declares that most existing gun regulation is constitutional. Check out Philip Carter's post on this topic.

<link>

rthorat:

Except, as Breyer says, the prevention of death is the most compelling interest a state could possibly find, and the Court here does not allow it. So, even though the majority says there are limits, this Court would never recognize one (and the restrictions on mentally ill are not limits, but rather outright, arbitrary denial of the right to certain citizens).

That is incorrect. In strict scrutiny (and here Breyer is correct in criticizing Scalia for not specifying a standard for review in the 2nd Amendment cases), compelling state interest is only half the threshold; you also have to show that the legislation in question is the least burdensome means for accomplishing that purpose. No such demonstration was undertaken here.

After all, isn't prevention of deaths from terrorism just as compelling as preventing deaths from accidents and homicides involving legally-owned guns? But no one, not even Scalia and Thomas, would say that preventing deaths from terrorism justifies anything that might prevent them. Likewise, executing mentally ill juvenile murderers might save lives too, but despite the compelling nature of that interest, we must find some other way to pursue it.

Guns are for the prevention of death, that's what self-defense is all about.