Supreme Court hears arguments on gun ownership This case holds a significant influence over the future of this country than any other case in a generation (including Bush v Gore or Roe v Wade). Whether or not the government can define Firearm Ownership as an 'individual' right or a 'collective' one has huge implications for everyone. The case goes well beyond simple gun ownership. Can a government, of the people, by the people and for the people, curtail fundamental rights without the consent of the people? While I think not, the times, they are a-changin'. Watch closely. We have history in the making. - Spydertrader
Now would be the time while everyone is distracted by the faltering economy, etc. Little by little they chip away. It's a slow process. Eventual firearm confiscation - they will no longer fear the people - the final solution to paving the way to a less populated, overpopulated planet. The people are out of control! UN - Codex Alimentarius, control the food supply, control the people. Control and eliminate your personal right and responsibility of your own health care, part of Codex Alimentarius. UN - Global Warming, control the people by controlling energy choices and energy taxes. The UN's attempt at controlling the internet- censor information from the dissident bloggers. Self-defense Food Health Energy Information Screwed
Dang! How do those other countries do it? Interesting to see how a common point from the states was that they'd be under civil rule. If civilian rule said no arms....
I think if the Court decides the individual right versus collective right issue, it will undoubtedly rule that the Second Amendment confers an individual right. Even liberal constitutional lawyers like Larry Tribe have conceded that point. Their fallback position is that "reasonable" regulations are allowable. They actually argue that a total ban on handguns, like that at issue here, is reasonable. After all they say, under the District's law you can legally own a rifle or shotgun, provided you keep it locked up or disassembled and provided further that you comply with an onerous registration requirement. The Bush administration stabbed its supporters in the back by filing a brief and arguing to the Court that it should remand the case to the lower court for determination as to the reasonableness of the regulation. Supposedly they are concerned that too broad a ruling could imperil federal laws against machineguns, etc. The most logical approach for the Court would be to rule that there is an individual right to own firearms, subject to limited regulation not inconsistent with the Amendment's intended purpose. As with the First Amendment, restrictions on the right would have to be narrowly drawn and the least restrictive means of obtaining the intended result. For example, it should be legitimate to bar convicted felons or the insane from gun ownership. I fully expect the District of Columbia to engage in bad faith attempts to circumvent any ruling that goes against them. No doubt they will immediately pass another law that imposes clearly onerous and unconstitutional limits on gun ownership, expecting it to take years to wind through the courts. By that time a democrat president might have appointed enough activist judges to get the ruling overturned.