Follow by Email

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Second Ammendment Case Before The Supreme Court

"Gun-control organizations seem worried that the Supreme Court will agree with the D.C. appellate court that the Second Amendment affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms. Such a ruling would seriously weaken the nationwide web of gun control laws enacted over the last 40 years, and groups like the Brady Campaign (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.) know it. Brady spokesman Paul Helmke admitted in an Associated Press article on October 4, that his organization suggested that D.C. not appeal the issue for fear of losing.

As with all matters before a court, the outcome of D.C. v. Heller is not certain. But it seems that the planets are lining up for champions of the Second Amendment. There is no longer any doubt that the founders meant it to affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the so-called collective right of the states is a fabrication. If the amicus brief of the American Academy of Pediatrics is any indication, the gun ban movement has not only run out of steam, it has run out of credible arguments for denying D.C. residents, and other Americans that most natural of rights — the right to self defense."

The preceding is taken from an article on nationalreview.com by Timothy Wheeler.

Just the past week the High Court has agreed to hear arguments in the case District of Columbia vs. Heller. A District Court recently struck down a law banning the ownership of handguns in D.C. The District of Columbia has appealed the decision. I believe the High Court will hear arguments in March with a decision expected in June. This will likely place this issue front and center for the upcoming Presidential election. This will not bode well for Giuliani who has a record of being against handguns. It would be interesting to know if he carries one??

The second amendment states: "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."

I honestly do not know what makes this so hard to understand especially when you consider that most of the Revolutionary Army was manned by men bringing their weapons from home to fight off British tyranny and oppression.

The amendment acknowledges:

Security is maintained through the bearing of arms.
Freedom is maintained through the bearing of arms.
The people are to be equipped to be called on by the State for its defense.
The right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people.
And what is so hard to understand about, "shall not be infringed."

I am a strong supporter of the right of the people to keep and bear arms for defense. I do not personally own an arsenal. I do own sufficient firepower to provide protection for my life and property. I don't anticipate ever having to use it and would only do so under the most alarming of circumstances. I would never shoot someone to kill them but I would shoot them to stop their aggression and violation against persons or property.

The right to self-defense is a basic human right and I do not want the government stripping me of the tools needed to provide a reasonable defense. I hope the High Court will get this right and come down on the side of personal liberty!

The rest of the article by Timothy Wheeler can be read here.
Post a Comment