Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge To DC Gun Ban
The highly ineffective DC gun ban, as I noted earlier.
In a decision that could affect gun control laws across the nation, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a gun….
The Supreme Court agreed to step in because the issue has caused a deep split in the lower courts. While a majority of courts have said that the right to bear arms refers in connection to service in a state militia, two federal courts have said the amendment protects an individual’s right to keep a gun.
One of those courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, went as far as striking down a decades-long ban on the private ownership of handguns in the District of Columbia. It is this case the court has agreed to consider.
The district will argue that the Second Amendment does not prevent the city from enacting reasonable regulations to limit gun possessions in order to protect residents.
The petition raises one question: “whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.”
I’m hopeful that the Supremes will issue the right verdict, but after the Kelo decision (where even the normally spot-on Justice Scalia got it wrong) who knows.
The correct ruling in this is blindingly obvious. The 2nd amendment sets out that American citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. The people who wrote the 2nd amendment are on record saying that it was included as last-ditch protection against tyranny. For instance, Thomas Jefferson wanted to include the words “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms” in the Virginia constitution. When New Hampshire ratified the Constitution, they included this statement: “Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.” And on and on.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.
I could go on, but you get the point. The people who wrote the constitution believed in an armed populace. If we want to change that today (and I, personally, think that would be folly) we have to amend the constitution.
That’s the only way around it.