On friday, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for District of Columbia struck down a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. This gun ban had been in effect since 1976.
The Brady Campaign To Prevent Handgun Violence called the decision "judicial activism at its worst". Mayor Adrian Fenty said, "I am personally deeply disappointed and, quite frankly, outraged by today's decision". Fenty vowed that the city would appeal the decision.
For a while now, many progressives have tried to interpret the second amendment to mean that militias, and not individuals, have a right to bear arms. The court struck that idea down.
The court said, "The amendment does not protect the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms, but rather the right of the people. If the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did".
I believe the court was correct in its decision.
Let me be clear - I do not like handguns. I would be very happy if all the handguns in the world would disappear tomorrow. I have never owned a handgun and probably never will own one. Handguns are good for only one thing - shooting other humans.
In fact, as some of you know, I was the victim of a handgun attack myself about a year and a half ago. A desperate criminal, running from the police, shot me in the stomach and stole my car. I came very close to dying that day.
But regardless of how I feel about handguns or what happened to me, I can still read. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly grants individuals the right to own firearms. For a handgun ban to be legal, the Constitution would have to be amended.
Actually, the court was pretty reasonable in its decision. It left intact the provision that outlaws carrying unregistered weapons on the streets of our capitol, and also the provision that would prevent ownership by certain individuals (convicted felons, mentally ill persons, etc.).
Like it or not, our forefathers made gun ownership a right. This was not "judicial activism". The court simply upheld the Constitution as it is written.
(The picture above courtesy of Ken Lunde at http://www.praxagora.com/lunde/firearms.html)
The Brady Campaign To Prevent Handgun Violence called the decision "judicial activism at its worst". Mayor Adrian Fenty said, "I am personally deeply disappointed and, quite frankly, outraged by today's decision". Fenty vowed that the city would appeal the decision.
For a while now, many progressives have tried to interpret the second amendment to mean that militias, and not individuals, have a right to bear arms. The court struck that idea down.
The court said, "The amendment does not protect the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms, but rather the right of the people. If the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did".
I believe the court was correct in its decision.
Let me be clear - I do not like handguns. I would be very happy if all the handguns in the world would disappear tomorrow. I have never owned a handgun and probably never will own one. Handguns are good for only one thing - shooting other humans.
In fact, as some of you know, I was the victim of a handgun attack myself about a year and a half ago. A desperate criminal, running from the police, shot me in the stomach and stole my car. I came very close to dying that day.
But regardless of how I feel about handguns or what happened to me, I can still read. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly grants individuals the right to own firearms. For a handgun ban to be legal, the Constitution would have to be amended.
Actually, the court was pretty reasonable in its decision. It left intact the provision that outlaws carrying unregistered weapons on the streets of our capitol, and also the provision that would prevent ownership by certain individuals (convicted felons, mentally ill persons, etc.).
Like it or not, our forefathers made gun ownership a right. This was not "judicial activism". The court simply upheld the Constitution as it is written.
(The picture above courtesy of Ken Lunde at http://www.praxagora.com/lunde/firearms.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.