Historic Supreme Court Brief Filed in Second Amendment Challenge to D.C. Gun Ban

dcguncase.com ^ | February 4th, 2008 | Alan Gura

[exnavy]

bump

[robertpaulsen]

"Yeah. Sure. More desirable to spend a year getting thirty-six state legislatures PLUS Congress to sign onto a bill that Congress alone could pass in a few minutes."

If you're truly interested, read this. An excerpt:

"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."

The rest of your post is unsupported conjecture and conspiracy theories that I won't dignify.