One Scared Elderly Man is About to Make the Country Safer

David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog ^ | October 2, 2009 | Claude Cartaginese

[HorowitzianConservative]

Does the Second Amendment give one the right to keep and bear arms (even allowing one to invoke that right against the government itself), or is it a freedom only as it concerns the federal government?

As Amy Goodman reported on her Democracy Now! program, that question will now be taken up by the United States Supreme Court, and the Court’s decision could have nationwide ramifications. Said Goodman yesterday:

The Supreme Court has decided to rule on whether state and local handgun laws violate the Second Amendment right to gun ownership, which it recognized last year, when the Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, DC. Justices will now decide whether handgun rights also extend beyond federal districts to the state and local level.

Should the Court find Chicago’s gun ban unconstitutional, the decision will not only allow residents of that city to keep guns in their homes for personal protection, it will also open the door to challenge similar gun bans nationwide.

In last year’s Washington DC ruling, the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment prevailed over DC’s ban on handguns, but because the capital is a federal enclave, the decision did not extend to other bans in the rest of the country. Many of those various state and city laws banning guns were imposed in the 19^th century, at the close of the Civil War. Since then, Judges have been reluctant to challenge those restrictions.

[Gilbo_3]

my pleasure...

[ctdonath2]

Somehow methinks SCOTUS (at least the RKBA-hostile judges) will find themselves between a rock and hard place on this one.

- Rule for incorporation, and see major fallout as Chicago, NY, etc. all lose their precious gun control laws; you’re familiar with this issue.

- Rule against incorporation, and see the 2ndA shine an extremely bright spotlight upon federal gun control laws as the totality of the enumerated right becomes concentrated; “shall not be infringed” becomes an unavoidable imperative having nothing else to dilute it, taking out 922(o) and NFA first and soon voiding a host of other national laws per “you don’t have the power to enact such restrictions”.

Painted into a corner.

[wastedyears]

Many of those various state and city laws banning guns were imposed in the 19th century, at the close of the Civil War. Since then, Judges have been reluctant to challenge those restrictions.

I'm absolutely dumbstruck.

[wastedyears]

Taken with credit

[Enterprise]

I like your tagline! :^)

[wastedyears]

Thank you for thinking it up. :)