Keep your fingers crossed that the Supreme Court doesn't go liberal on this one, like they did on child rape yesterday.
quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule Thursday on the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's handgun ban, but the decision likely will have broader implications and could change the course of debate on the Second Amendment.
At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller is whether the city's sweeping ban violates the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.
In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.
It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.
Now that ruling is before the Supreme Court and they are expected to rule on this today.
The best ruling would be that the 2nd Amendment is an "individual's right". Keep your fingers crossed but I don't think they will be quite that clear on the issue.
I'm worried that the ruling will go something like this.
Completely side-step the "individual's right" issue
Rule that since they didn't ban ALL guns (they only banned handguns), that the DC law didn't violate the 2nd Amendment.
I think that would be a total cop out by the Supreme Court, if they do, but they have been known to cop out before.
In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is most definitely an "individual's right" to own firearms. The founders didn't want the citizens to be disarmed by the government. It is laughable that the 2nd Amendment was added to allow the military to posess fireamrs, as some suggest. Clearly it was the citizens that the 2nd Amendment was referring to the citizens. At the time of the constitution, "the militia" was the citizens.
