Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rellimpank
The court has "inserted itself"? The issue is "reasonable gun control"?

I see proper application of the principle of Checks and Balances and I see the possibility that basic rights may be reclaimed.

3 posted on 11/21/2007 5:14:40 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (The broken wall, the burning roof and tower. And Agamemnon dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ClearCase_guy

I think your right, read how the question was framed for the SCOTUS to answer, and make note of the fact that the SCOTUS actually authored the question to be answered, normally, the question comes from one or more of the parties involved. The question they are planning to answer is:

“Whether the following provisions [three sections of the D.C. gun law] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The question is asking whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to somebody living in a non-state, District of Columbia. If it doesn’t then the DC Attorneys have no standing to argue issues related to the Constitution.

Due to the fact that this case revolves around a non-state, I very much doubt that this is the case that the SCOTUS will use to clear up the 2nd.


14 posted on 11/21/2007 5:36:22 AM PST by SirFishalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson