It is really a very simple question – does the Second Amendment, which declares that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

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.

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 clear historical context of the Second Amendment says that it does. So do the words of those who adopted it. And given the construction of the amendment, the right must be seen as an individual one, just like the similarly constructed "right of the people to peaceably assemble" and the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" clearly protect individual rights. The parallel structure makes this conclusion unavoidable – and even if there is room for reasonable limitations upon the exercise of these rights, the DC law goes far beyond it.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.