click to enlarge collage (copyright 2006 All This Is That)
The Supremes could decide the constitutionality of gun ownership, and we may know as early as tomorrow whether or not they decide to take the case. To those of us on the anti- side, it seems obvious.
You may remember during his confirmation hearing, that Chief Justice John Roberts said the Miller decision (dating back to the 1939) "side-stepped the issue" and left "very open" the issue whether the second amendment protects an individual right, or a more collective right.
Both anti gun and pro-gun forces (or, peace freaks and gun nuts) have urged The Supremes to take on this case (questioning the constitutionality of the the District of Columbia's strict gun-control law). If the justices agree to hear the case, the Roberts court will find itself square in the sights of a culture war that makes the abortion issue look like a sandbox altercation (because the pro-gun forces are well-armed, and a little bit kooky).
Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual's right to "keep and bear arms?" If the answer is yes, as a federal appeals court held last March, the Supremes must decide how this impacts a statute that bars possession of handguns and requires all guns in the home to be disassembled or protected by trigger locks.
It has been almost 70 years since the court even danced around the gun control issue. In 1939, the United States v. Miller, held that a sawed-off shotgun was not one of the "arms" to which the Second Amendment referred in its "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."
The District of Columbia is not a normal city (its gun law was passed in that heady first year of home-rule) and the law has pissed off "right to bear arms" types since it was passed in 1973. Even the allegedly apolitical Supremes must be wary of taking on this issue in an election year. November 4, 2008 looms large.---o0o---
Both anti gun and pro-gun forces (or, peace freaks and gun nuts) have urged The Supremes to take on this case (questioning the constitutionality of the the District of Columbia's strict gun-control law). If the justices agree to hear the case, the Roberts court will find itself square in the sights of a culture war that makes the abortion issue look like a sandbox altercation (because the pro-gun forces are well-armed, and a little bit kooky).
click to enlarge Chief Justice Roberts
Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual's right to "keep and bear arms?" If the answer is yes, as a federal appeals court held last March, the Supremes must decide how this impacts a statute that bars possession of handguns and requires all guns in the home to be disassembled or protected by trigger locks.
It has been almost 70 years since the court even danced around the gun control issue. In 1939, the United States v. Miller, held that a sawed-off shotgun was not one of the "arms" to which the Second Amendment referred in its "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."
The District of Columbia is not a normal city (its gun law was passed in that heady first year of home-rule) and the law has pissed off "right to bear arms" types since it was passed in 1973. Even the allegedly apolitical Supremes must be wary of taking on this issue in an election year. November 4, 2008 looms large.
No comments:
Post a Comment