In what is likely to be one of the most important rulings of this term, the Supreme Court has taken up the D.C. hand-gun case. The Court is now set to rule on the long debated question of whether the second amendment creates an individual right or merely refers to the state’s right of a militia. For a prior column on this issue, click here
SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL OPINION BLOG (2011)
SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG (2008)
Winner — Top Opinion Writer By Aspen Institute and The Week Magazine for Best Single-Issue Advocacy (Civil Liberties)
Well, well, well. DC cannot vote, but they may be able to bear arms. carry guns, pack heat.
So it is bullets before ballots in the Nation’s Capitol.
This is irony verging on travesty.
Incidentally, if the right to bear arms is an individual rignt, like speech, religion, and assembly, is it absolute?
Or is is subject to reasonable limitations, like the other enumerated rignts? And what might those limits be?
The Bill of Rights had nothing to do with the rights of Government, yet this single right, the 2nd Amendment has been distorted over the years to mean anything but the right of individuals to bear arms. The term well regulated is a glaring example of misinterpretation. At the time it was written, the word regulated was synonymous with provisioned. All the colonists were the militia, and in many states, that still holds true today.Would the framers add to the Constitution a Bill of Rights to protect the sovereign? Not at all. The first 10 amendments clearly state the peoples rights not the Governments, and those rights pre-empt the Government’s as they are unalienable.The Humanity of Man verses Tyranny of the Government.