Now I can understand technically that this might be the first time in our nation’s history that the right to bear arms has been “embraced” (possibly) by the Supreme Court, but what is so new about the right to bear arms?

The reason it hasn’t been “embraced” by the Supreme Court is because it hasn’t needed to be. What’s SHOCKING is that it took this long for someone in the District to appeal this obvious constitutional infringement. Let’s take a look at it, shall we?

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.

Hmmm…what part of that is not clear? A well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. First of all, there is a difference between a standing army and a militia, and even the National Guard fits the former definition better than the latter. A militia is by its definition ARMED individuals prepared to defend their community from whatever force it feels is infringing upon its community. For a Solicitor General to make this argument:

…Mr. Dellinger asserted that at the time the Second Amendment was drafted, “the people” and “the militia” were essentially synonymous; therefore, he said, the amendment, its two clauses properly interpreted, gave people the right to own weapons only in connection with their militia service….Mr. Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general, {stated} that the focus should be on “the scope and nature of the right that the people have.” He added, “It is a right to participate in the common defense.”

And how are people to participate in the common defense if they are unarmed? And what is “common”? The country? State? Neighborhood?

And what about the handgun violence in D.C. today? The Boston Globe calls it a mystery that the gun ban in DC hasn’t “accomplished everything that mayor and council of that era wanted it to.”

Really? But for a real groan, read this:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, late in the argument, made an effort to save the statute by a similar historical analogy. Firearms were regulated in the country’s early years for the sake of safety, he noted, describing a Massachusetts law that prohibited keeping loaded weapons in the home because of the risk of fire. “So today, roughly, you can say no handguns in the city because of the risk of crime,” Justice Breyer said. “Things change.”

What? Risk of crime? So guns are at risk of just jumping up and committing crimes all on their own? I’m amazed at this twisted sort of logic. At least he didn’t cite “International Law.” If he did he might have done a little research on the UK gun ban in 1996-7.

If this case goes where I hope it’s going, this will be the most fortunate turn of events for the people of DC in decades.

First time in History?
Tagged on:                 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *