Second Amendment Victory

Probably one of the few good things to come out Washington D.C. lately is a decision by the District of Columbia federal court that found D.C.'s ban on handguns (and other firearms restrictions) unconstitutional. The decision is a huge victory for everyone, especially gun owners in our nation's capital. The door now may be open for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether the Second Amendment - "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" - is an individual or "collective" right.

In their historic decision, the D.C. court said they "conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." They continue on further by saying "[t]hat right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution..." and it was seen as a means of "resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." Probably the best language I have heard a court use in a long time; it actually sounds like they read the constitution for once.

Many onlookers see this as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to finally rule on the true meaning of the Second Amendment. The only time the court came close was in USA v. Miller (1939) and that ruling was ambiguous enough to have both sides of the gun control debate claiming victory. If our highest court upholds the decision of the D.C. justices, it could lead to greater freedom of law-abiding people to own and carry firearms.

I can merely relate to you that this is a great victory for the rights of gun owners. To feel the real meaning of the words you must read the decision for yourself (second link). It could take quite a while for the Supreme Court to hear the arguments for this case. I recommend trying to fight Senate Bill 44, here in New Hampshire, while we wait for the 9 justices to render their decision.

In Libertate,
Tyler