Every press report that I am seeing on the United States Supreme Court hearing on the Washington, DC gun ban echoes what the Los Angeles Times report is saying: There appears to be solid support on the court for upholding that the Second Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices, hearing a historic argument on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, signaled they are likely to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and rule that homeowners have a right to keep a gun for self-defense.
But if the oral arguments are any guide, the outcome will not be unanimous. Several justices said they believed the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the state's right to maintain a "well-regulated militia," not to give gun rights to individuals.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. "In my view, there is a general right to bear arms" that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.
Most Americans believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding persons to "keep and bear arms." But the legal meaning of this provision remains in doubt. The high court has never invoked this right to strike down a gun law nor has it ruled that it protects a personal right to own a gun.
The LA Times seems to think the impact of such an outcome will be minor. I rather suspect that it might be more far-reaching than they do. States like Illinois which do not grant carry permits could find themselves in court, as might states like New York which have a virtually impossible to get carry permits. I've been a bit worried about this case for a while. Today's news is encouraging.
I don’t yet have a handgun and have never fired my street sweeper bought for cheap when Slick banned assault weapons. Nonetheless, I am encouraged that even Kennedy can parse post-Enlightenment English and tacitly acknowledge the 2nd as protection against government.
Why else the care re: the branches of government? A Bill of Rights included in the constitution of that government?
Gaius -
Here ya go …
The MOST important Gun Control Soundbite you’ll hear:
http://patdollard.com/2008/03/video-most-important-gun-control-soundbite-youll-hear-today/
Kind of says it all, doesn’t it? Meanwhile, I’m looking hard at an FNH 9mm with 16-round magazine capacity. I’m hearing nice things about it. I love my Taurus PT-92 but it does lack a rail.
Gauis -
Since the end of summer I have made a couple big changes in my life … all in an effort to take control as I turn the friggin’ corner to 50. One was to be certain I look no older than 40 … heh!
One is to take a trip all by myself … the first time ever … and I will be doing such the end of this month.
One of my "changes" will also be to take gun safety and shooting classes this spring … and then decide on which gun to bring into my home. I don’t know what brought me to this, or why I have come to this in my life, but I feel very strongly about it.
To me, the trip is more scary than the whole gun thing …
Pingback: The Conservative Reader » Blog Archive » The Second Amendment is All About Self-defense
On the point made in Maggie’s link, Robert Heinlein once wrote "An armed society is a polite society." Has anyone noticed that public civility, not to mention crime, has gone up in inverse proportion to the trend of less and less people carrying weapons? Think about it.
A few years ago there was a town in Georgia, I don’t remember the name of the tow offhand, that passed a law requiring residents to own at least one gun. After the the law was passed, the crime rate in that town plummeted. When I still lived in NY State, around the mid 70′s, there was a citizen action committee that announced they would give a $1000 reward to any homeowner that shot a burglar breaking into their house anywhere in the state. Within two weeks two homeowners in different parts of the state collected the reward. After the second burlar shooting the burglary rate in New York State dropped by over 50% for a while.
The Judge said what we already know – banning guns does not reduce crime because it will be the criminals that will have the weapons and not the law-abiding citizens.