Letters: Supreme Court gets my logical vote
Supreme Court gets my logical vote A number of my gun-owning friends are worried about the pending challenge to the Second Amendment in the appeal of Washington, DC's gun ban, which the US Supreme Court has decided to hear. Some anti-gun folks I ...
gets my logical vote
A number of my gun-owning friends are worried about the pending challenge to the Second Amendment in the appeal of Washington, DC's gun ban, which the US Supreme Court has decided to hear. Some anti-gun folks I know are watching the potential decision like a barnyard rooster eyeing up a big, fat juicy worm.
So, I decided to do some investigating.
The Supreme Court has said that its review of the Court of Appeals decision will be limited to the following question "Whether (Washington, DC's ban regarding having guns in operable condition in the home and on carrying guns in the home) violates the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."
The case doesn't deal with carrying a gun away from home, doesn't seek to overturn DC's firearm registration law and doesn't seek to overturn other laws in DC.
But, prior Supreme Court verdicts add vision. In the 1939 Supreme Court case of US vs. Miller, it concluded "that militiamen were expected to bring their private arms with them when called to service."
In the 1876 US vs. Cruikshank case, said the court about the Second Amendment, where it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "...is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed."
Logic dictates that the court gets my vote to follow the rule of law.