Currently a case is before the Supreme Court that argues that a D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional as it violates the 2nd Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals said it was and now the parties are asking the Supreme Court for their wisdom. You might think that the court wouldn't be interested in arguments about policy, such as whether this ban is a good thing or a bad thing, and that all they'd be interested in is what does the constitution say. But you'd be wrong.
The court does take policy reccomendations into account, along with arguments about the text of the constitution, the original intent, etc. This can be confusing and causes many to say "the constitution says whatever 5 [of 9] U.S. Supreme Court Justices say it says." Not a bad rule of thumb, when you think about it, but I don't want to give you the impression the Supremes are just flipping coins on these important matters.
Here's an article that talks about some of the policy stuff: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=657155&category=OPINION&newsdate=1/22/2008
You can find out more simply by reading this Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think it is perfectly fine to have a gun or guns in your home. As long as you have permits for them and you use gun safety techniques. Now the constitution does say "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." 2nd Amendment. But we don't have militias anymore so doesn't that put us back to square one?
LC320:
You asked: "But we don't have militias anymore so doesn't that put us back to square one?"
That's the argument of the folks defending DC's gun ban. Now the Supreme Court will decide.
Of course, even if they decide that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to non-militia members, and since militias are no more, that it's meaningless (something I doubt they'd do), they can still find constitutional support elsewhere.
The betting is that they'll at the very least say that guns can be regulated, if not banned outright.
Post a Comment