Replies

Its more than ground-breaking. Its mean EVERY gun control law that inhibits or prevents people from exercising their right of self-defense is on its face, unconstitutional. Every gun control law would have to meet the same kind of standard that laws affecting freedom of speech must and under such a standard very few of the 30,000 laws on the books could pass constitutional muster. So if a total ban on handguns is unconstitutional, I think even less restrictive laws fail that test if they in any way impair an individual's fundamental right to self-defense. So the U.S Supreme Court may finally have to adress just how broad the scope of the Second Amendment is and my view its very broad with respect to that individual right it enshrines - not just for the residents of DC but for ALL Americans.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

This is a great ruling, but I do see an issue - I wish this was a ruling against a state's ban on weapons. Why? Because the 2A has not yet been incorporated as applying to the states as most of the BOR has been. DC is a federal district, not a state. It is alrady clear the BOR applies against the feds.

Read up on the "incorporation doctrine"/"doctrine of incorporation" and 14A and you'll soon see the potential problem.

It is great that the court recognized 2A as a fundamental right, but the question remains whether or not the Supremes would 1. uphold this reversal so that the people in DC can defend themselves and 2. If the Supremes agree that it is an indivicual right, whether or not it is "fundamental" enough to apply against the states.

The "incorporation doctrine" is the nemesis here. Mind you this is a power the black robe royalty vested upon itself and does NOT appear in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court basically claimed the power to decide which rights are fundamental enough that they must also apply to the states.

Ever wonder why 1A applies against the states when 1A clearly states "CONGRESS shall make no law....."? B/C the Supreems declared it was fundamental.

Its more than ground-breaking. Its mean EVERY gun control law that inhibits or prevents people from exercising their right of self-defense is on its face, unconstitutional.

Finally, a slippery slope in the right direction.

"Its mean EVERY gun control law that inhibits or prevents people from exercising their right of self-defense is on its face, unconstitutional."

Not yet. This ruling only applies to the District of Columbia. The D.C. Court of Appeals is the equivalent of a state supreme court.