Posted on 03/18/2008 7:17:38 PM PDT by kellynla
The fate of the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns — along with the potential validity of other firearm laws across the country — now rests in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court after justices this morning questioned the constitutionality of the city's stringent gun statutes.
"The court asked a lot of very insightful and interesting questions," said Alan Gura, a lawyer who argued before the nine justices in favor of upholding a lower-court decision that overturned the ban. "We feel very good about how the argument went and look forward to this case being resolved."
The case — District of Columbia v. Heller — is the first time in roughly 70 years that the country's highest court has considered the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and whether it establishes an individual's right to own firearms or only permits their possession by persons associated with a state-regulated militia.
The legal arguments touched on everything from the specific phrasing of the 27-word Second Amendment to the historical context of its adoption and whether or not the District's laws — which prevent most residents from legally keeping handguns in the city and requiring other firearms to be stored bound and disassembled — are "reasonable" restrictions under the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I think Bin Laden is; Ginsberg has reportedly been seen with that Bernie dude.
Kennedy actual came very close to articulating a thought that I have had concerning the fact that the actions of a "well-regulated Militia" are really just the plural of individual self-defense.
If an individual finds himself in an isolated place and is beset by attackers, then that individual exercises his right to self-defense. If it is two people being attacked, then they exercise their individual rights to self-defense.
But at some point, the various individuals recognize that they must coordinate their activities to accomplish the end of protecting all of them. At that point, they are exercising their right to act as a "well-regulated Militia".
It's a continuum without sharp boundaries but it is the consequence of the inalienable right to self-defense.
They showed the official photo of the justice who was speaking and headshots of the attorneys. And BTW, the pro gun side also had no problem with gun licensing.
I think that's exactly the case. It would be great if some language to that effect ends up in the majority opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.