Search
Saturday, May 19, 2012 ..:: Home ::.. Register  Login
 Foundations Minimize

What I'm For
and Against

PRO

  • Atomic power
  • Space Exploration
  • Free Trade
  • Capitalism
  • Home Schooling
  • Liberty
  • Amendments IX and X
  • 10th Commandment
  • Good Manners

ANTI

  • War on Drugs 
  • "Universal" Health Care
  • Religion-based government 
  • Big Government of any kind
  • Compulsory government monopoly mass schooling
  • Income Tax
  • Windmills and other government-subsidized "alternative" energy boondoggles
  • The idea that electing the "right" person will make everything better

 Print   
 Clock Minimize

This excellent clock comes from the Poodwaddle web site.  Yes, that's what it's called!

 


 Print   
 TC Archive Minimize

 Print   
 DownsizeDC Minimize

 Print   
 The Town Crank Minimize
free counters
Nov 20

Written by: Steve Erbach
Tuesday, November 20, 2007 6:00 PM

My earlier post about the potential Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, expressed hope that the Court would hear it. Now it looks like my wish has been granted:

Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

Nov 20 03:23 PM US/Eastern
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.

The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.

Alan Gura, a lawyer for Washington residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.

"We believe the Supreme Court will acknowledge that, while the use of guns can be regulated, a complete prohibition on all functional firearms is too extreme," Gura said. "It's time to end this unconstitutional disaster. It's time to restore a basic freedom to all Washington residents."


The only tricky point, the one that the Court will clarify, is whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal laws.

Tags:

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Security Code
Enter the code shown above in the box below
Add Comment    Cancel  

  
 Tea Partyer Minimize

Time for a Tea Party!

U.S. Congressman, Maxine Waters, says that the TEA Party "can go straight to hell."  Well, after you, Maxine!


 Print   
 Our Founder Minimize

Our Founder

"Just shut yer yap, leave me alone, and stop raising my blankety blank taxes!"

You are free to add your two cents to any blog entry; but if you want to send a deeply personal message to Our Founder, [click here].


 Print   
 Regular Reading Minimize

 Print   
Copyright 2010 by Steven W. Erbach   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement
DotNetNuke® is copyright 2002-2012 by DotNetNuke Corporation