[coloradan]

I agree with you, as I indicated in my closing statement. However, there have been federal cases concerning state-level gun control, which were let stand because the federal court ruled that the Second Amendment only served as a restraint to the federal, not state, government, and thus left states free to prohibit guns as they wished. (Which is not to say I agree with this sentiment.) But in this case, Washington DC is not a state, and this excuse to allow gun control to remain on the books falls. It's too bad we can't have the same judges who ruled that the Second Amendment only stays the hand of the federal government, rule on gun control in D.C. as well. They'd have to either throw out all gun control (foir D.C.), or write a hopelessly contorted or clearly contradictory ruling upholding it.

[William Tell]

coloradan said: "It's too bad we can't have the same judges who ruled that the Second Amendment only stays the hand of the federal government, rule on gun control in D.C. as well. They'd have to either throw out all gun control (foir D.C.), or write a hopelessly contorted or clearly contradictory ruling upholding it."

I agree. That is the reason why I am so disappointed that the Supreme Court refused to hear Emerson. There is no logic to any ruling which fails to protect my right to keep and bear arms from infringement. There is absolutely no record of our founders being concerned about the lethality of the arms protected by the Second Amendment. "Every terrible implement of war" was one description of the protected arms.

All of this NFA 34 and "assault weapons" nonsense would have to end with any decision based on the record. The so-called "moderates" on the court must have made it clear that they would refuse to be bound by logic in order to cause the situation we see now. Now that even liberal legal experts are understanding the clear meaning of the Second Amendment, there is no way for the Supreme Court to render a decision except in favor of our Founder's wisdom.