Judging by who is writing the majority opinion, Justice Scalia, of the Supreme Court for the DC vs Heller case, it seems to me that all is in favor of individual rights for the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.If you don't know what DC vs Heller is about, you should, because the Supreme Court's opinion on this particular matter will affect gun control laws across the country and possibly have affects elsewhere as well. What it means is that finally the language in the Second Amendment will have an explanation and an official interpretation rather the speculation that has been going on since early in the 20th century and the founding of the National Guard.
Gun control advocates will argue that reasonable restrictions are permitted by the Second Amendment and other clauses within the US Constitution on individual ownership of firearms. I don't think an outright ban on just about all firearms in Washington DC would constitute reasonable.
This is exactly what the case is about. Is the "...right to bear arms" an individual right or a collective right enjoyed solely by the federal government, states and localities?
What does seem reasonable to me is that individual ownership of arms has been a right since medieval times, most notably in Anglo-Saxon-dominated England not long after the fall of the Roman Empire.
The Second Amendment does not grant the right to bear arms but rather reiterates the restriction on the government from hindering the right to bear arms that Parliament used to love to do with sporting laws for hunters.
Full Article
Blogged with the Flock Browser
0 comments:
Post a Comment