D.C. Hand Gun Ban
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Why do we need the Supreme Court to pour over that easy to understand sentence? Well today for the first time since 1939 the meaning of the ammendment is challenged because of the Washington D.C. ban on handguns.
The challenge of the 32 year old ban came from Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security gaurd who had applied to keep a hangun in his home for protection. After he was rejected he sued saying that it was an individuals right to bear arms.
Obviously some could argue the relevance of having a concealed weapon in a church or bar, etc., but if you want to protect your home that is your sovereign right!
The City Council that initiated the ban claims it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia." Lets see...Ban on Handguns for 32 years = worst crime in the NATION!! for 32 years. If I lived there I would excersize my right to bear arms at least in my own home. My own property that no one else wold defend.
At least it looks as though the Supreme Court will uphold the individuals right to keep and bear arms, though, it is hard to tell if they will call D.C.'s ban unconstitutional. Cheif Justice John Roberts did make the point that handguns are best suited for home protection. He asked at one point "What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?"
Back to the second ammendment. It is obvious in the way it is so clearly written that the second ammendment contains 2 rights that shall not be infringed. 1. a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State and 2. the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is not the only ammendment that contains more than one right given to us by our constitution.
If you beleive that the second ammendment only relates to militias than you would also have to say the first ammendment only gives us freedom of speech and freedom of the press only if it is related to religion. So with that kind of ridiculous thinking we would only have the freedom to say what we want if it were related to religous issues only! If you dont beleive me read it. Amendment I The rights are laid out exactly as they are in the second ammendment. it is so frustrating that some people in this country would try and change what the constitution clearly states and what gives them their freedoms, for their own agenda.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If a group is successful at taking away a right that we under the constitution enjoy, by taking away that right and opening the door for all rights to questioned, are they not, in turn, taking away their own freedoms giving up their own sovereignty? Jason Beaune
"the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'" Pres. Ronald Reagan
First, let me say thanks for the kudo at Zimbio. I followed the link to your blog and read this post.
I lived in the DC area for 10 years and worked there.
They do not need any more handguns of any sort. The drug dealers within 2-3 blocks of the capital have enough for all of us.
As to militia and firearms. I'm thinking the authors of the constitution were thinking about rifles and shotguns. Does DC ban them as well?
When it comes to home defense the number one weapon recommended by security pros is the shotgun. Easy to aim and less likely to be stolen and used in a Robbery or murder.
Just a couple of comments from a guy who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon years ago and got tired of the tremendous responsibility of going about armed.
Rich
Reply to this
You are right that carrying any weapon is a tremendous responsibility, or owning one for that matter. As far as the hand gun ban I believe the 2nd ammendment clearly says our right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. I take that as no law shall infringe upon my right to bear arms.
Reply to this
While claims have been made that the right to bear arms is intended for militias , I believe that our forefathers intended for all the right to have and own weapons. Not just for personal protection, but also, as a means to keep government in check knowing that an armed society could revolt against unjust actions of its government.
Reply to this
The right is all about protecting yourself against the Government and was writen to keep them off your property and out of your pocket. I ment to post last week but I was PREPARING MY TAXES BEFORE THE 15TH SO THEY WOULDN'T COME TAKE MY LAND!!!!WHERES MY FREAKIN.....Sorry..........PEN
Reply to this
Yes, the ammendment was meant for us to protect our personal sovereignty, our personal rights and property. With the recent comments of Barrack Obama about the bitter Pennsylvanians and there guns it makes you realize how important it is to protect our constitution. Thats why we need Alan Keyes for president. The Dems are definetly willing to throw out the constitution into their pile of abortions, a big pile, and the GOP has not done enough to protect us under the constitution. We need another party and Alan Keyes is a great alternative.
Reply to this