State court case links with no descriptions.
The Supreme Court has created a framework for analyzing laws that are alleged to be unconstitutional. Particularly in the area of made up rights, like a right to an abortion, or a right to a government job, they decide if the right is "fundamental" or not. However, as to rights listed in the Constitution, like the right to free speech, or assembly, or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, these are usually presumed to be fundamental, and are thus subject to so called "strict scrutiny" analysis. This means the government has to show a compelling interest furthered by the law, with the means of achieving that interest narrowly tailored to the problem at hand. On the other hand, with something the court deems to not be fundamental, the state need only show a reasonable relationship between the power exercised, and the way it is done. Thus laws regulating contract are very liberally reviewed. On the other hand, race conscious laws need to be motivated by a very important govermnet interest, and are usually void. The Ohio court here in essence decides, that the right exists, but it isn't fundamental, and almost any justification will be sufficient for the state to run roughshod over it. The Supremes could easily use this logic to uphold most federal gun control laws under the second amendment. It has been done many times before, in other contexts. The dissent in this case is right on the money.
The case is the only one construing possessing a machine gun with loaded ammo for same (or spent shells) to be illegal, as possessing the gun for aggressive or offensive use, under Maryland law. The upshot seems to be that possessing a machine gun for use as a weapon, either in self defense, or for nefarious purposes, is a crime in that State. In fact possessing it loaded gives rise to a presumption that it is possessed for unlawful (aggressive) purposes. I wonder how folks there handle going to the range.
This case was dismissed in July, 1997, after proceedings after remand, based on the parties representing to the court that a settlement had been reached, although the settlement was not presented to the court to be made an order of the court. The settlement apparently was the City agreeing to make uniform rules for the issuing of permits, and paying the plaintiffs' legal bills.
The court decides that while men have a right to keep and bear arms under the state constitution, the right does not extend to bearing the weapons to terrify the population.