High Court to Weigh Ban on Gun Ownership
WASHINGTON
(AP) …for complete article
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” in nearly 70 years.
The justices’ decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
City officials said the law is designed to reduce gun violence, noting that four out of every five homicides this year was committed with a gun. Opponents of the ban pointed to the level of violence to make their case that Washington residents should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves in their homes.
“This is clearly going to be one of the biggest … cases decided this year,” said Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett. “It is one of the very few times when the Supreme Court has the opportunity to interpret a provision of the Constitution … unencumbered by previous Supreme Court rulings.”
The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday’s announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
Gun-control advocates say the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th-century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.
Wild Thing’s comment……..
It is abhorrent that the Supreme Court should be permitted to consider the question.
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
If you ask me, the Court has already tipped thier hands by substituting “state-regulated” for “well regulated”.
There is a difference.
“State-regulated” = doing the state’s bidding.
“Well-regulated” = equipped, competent, functional, coordinated – but not necessarily under gov’t control.
Recent Comments