The Right to Bear Arms in Washington D.C.

townhall ^ | 3 18 07 | George F. Will

[flixxx]

WASHINGTON -- By striking down the District of Columbia's extraordinarily strict gun control law, which essentially bans guns, a federal appeals court may have revived gun control as a political issue. It has been mostly dormant since autumn 2000, when Al Gore decided he was less interested in it than in carrying states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania: "Gore Tables Gun Issue As He Courts Midwest" (The New York Times, Sept. 20, 2000). The appeals court ruling appalls advocates of gun control laws, and should alarm the Democratic Party.

[flixxx]

Will is insightful as always.

[Perseverando]

Bump!

[AZRepublican]

Looks like Will read what Paul Madison wrote here.

[hkp123]

Interesting that even on here, FR, more sheep look at and respond to stories that don't mean crap.

[sgtbono2002]

My problem is that if the DC ruling is taken to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rules against us,there will be laws springing up all over the country to take away our guns. This is a dangerous thing.IMO.

[AZRepublican]

I don't think that will happen because every state Constitution prohibits disarming citizens. You might find concealed weapon or types of weapons crappy regulation like that, but never outright banning. Gun banning would require amending state constitutions, and that won't happen.

[nj26]

Another reason why CONSERVATIVE, STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST judges are so important. And why it's essential that we nominate GOP candidates that won't appoint liberals to the court.

[2harddrive]

Let's all put the 2nd Amendment FIRST!!!!

[Redbob]

"It (gun control) has been mostly dormant since autumn 2000, when Al Gore decided he was less interested in it than in carrying states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania:"

LOL!

It's funny how Liberals talk so much about gun control - right up until they start running for office, and then it's nothing but bird dogs and shotguns for them!

[Redbob]

"I don't think that will happen because every state Constitution prohibits disarming citizens."

That is absolutely false, and dangerously so.

Not all states' constitutions address the issue of firearms ownership,and of those that do, not all guarantee it in as strong a language as does our U.S. Constitution.

[festus]

Thats my fear too but you never know it could wind up being a great day for us.

[festus]

In 2000, advocates of stringent gun control thought they had won their argument with historical evidence when an Emory University historian, Michael Bellesiles, published ``Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.'' This book, which was awarded the Bancroft Prize, the most coveted honor for American history scholarship, argued that when the Second Amendment was written, guns were not widely owned or reliable enough to be important. Therefore the amendment was written to protect only the rights of states, not of individuals.

Thus proving that @ Emory you don't need to be smart enough to know that in the constitution arms were not synonmyous with guns. It included guns, swords, canons, slingshots and whatever else could be weilded as a weapon.

[sgtbono2002]

Keep the faith.

[nonsporting]

Not all states' constitutions address the issue of firearms ownership,and of those that do, not all guarantee it in as strong a language as does our U.S. Constitution.

The Second Amendment Foundation Website convers this topic: RKBA Protections

There are six states (California, Iowa, Maryland, Minisota, New Jersey, New York) which have no constitutional provisions per se for protecting RKBA from infringement. However, those that do appear to use the USCON language verbatim or have stronger language, obviating the modern collective rights pretext.

There are only a few which qualify the right "for the common defense" and consequently might push a collective rights justification for denying the right in general: Arkansas, Massachusettes.