comScore

Sorry, but the Supreme Court already ruled that guns can be regulated

What a Prior Lake elementary gym teacher will look like in 2020 as he supervises kids on the playground.

What a Prior Lake elementary gym teacher will look like in 2020 as he supervises kids on the playground. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson

Reader Amy Smith VanderLeest responds to Rep. Mary Fransen compares March For Our Lives kids to Hitler Youth:

The Supreme Court in the landmark 2008 D.C. vs Heller decision states that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including prohibiting firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill, forbidding possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and imposing conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The court noted that this list is not exhaustive, and concluded that the Second Amendment is also consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use at the time, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms that are most useful in military service.

In addition, the court declared that its analysis should not be read to suggest “the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.”

This is the law of the land. Stronger stricter regulated laws can be implemented to keep firearms away from vulnerable or dangerous people.

This isn’t a liberal issue. It’s a matter of public safety.