July 17, 2007

DC Officials Want SCOTUS To Declare Second Amendment Void Where Prohibited By Law

After all, the gun law struck down in the District basically made it a crime for a mere serf citizen to keep or bear arms in the District of Columbia. Now the mayor has announced plans to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.

The District will ask the Supreme Court to uphold its strict 30-year handgun ban, setting up what legal experts said could be a test of the Second Amendment with broad ramifications.

The high court has not ruled on the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms since 1939. But at a morning news conference yesterday, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and Attorney General Linda Singer said they expect the court to hear a case they called crucial to public safety.

In a 2 to 1 decision in March, a panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city's prohibition against residents keeping handguns in their homes is unconstitutional. In May, the full appeals court declined a petition from the city to reconsider the panel's decision.

Some gun control advocates have cautioned that a defeat in the Supreme Court could lead to tough gun laws being overturned in major cities, including New York, Chicago and Detroit. Fenty said the District had no choice but to fight because more guns in homes could lead to increases in violent crime and deadly accidents.

"The handgun ban has saved many lives and will continue to do so if it remains in effect," Fenty said. "Wherever I go, the response from the residents is, 'Mayor Fenty, you've got to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.' "

You know, the data shows Fenty's argument to be false. Crime drops where the law-abiding are free to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment -- and criminals, of course, are strangely disinclined to follow gun bans.

Interestingly enough, if one looks at the words of the Founders on the right to keep and bear arms, there should be no question as to the meaning of the Second Amendment -- or its purpose. And indeed, a hard-and-fast ruling that there is no right for the people to keep and bear arms in the amendment guaranteeing that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" might well be a good reason to implement that purpose.

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
6kb generated in CPU 0.007, elapsed 0.0116 seconds.
19 queries taking 0.0071 seconds, 28 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]