Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
"The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional."
Since the Founding Fathers added no restrictions of any kind the the second ammendment, this statement reiterated the obvious.
"In 2004, a lower-court judge had told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection."
Self protection of the individual was why the second ammendment was added. Protection from a usurping government as well as enemies of our Nation.
"There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."
Now there is Judge with a firm grip on the obvious, or maybe just gifted with understanding the written word. If no one challenges unjust laws, then freedom will wither and die. Freedom is much easier to maintain than to win back when it's taken away.
I just hope the trend holds.
I'm however more than a little dismayed that Judge Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."
-
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
-
I do not find the First Amendment to be particularly vague, and I do not see where the US Congress can make law establishing a religion (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) pass a law abridging the freedom of speech and or the press, or deny the people the right to peaceably assemble and or petition the government for a redress of grievances.
As for Judge Henderson, I do not understand why the Judge would bring up the fact that Washington D.C. is not a State, while in my opinion side with the Lower Court, which used the argument that what amounts to the State Militia of D.C. was afforded the protection of the Second Amendment in full force, while Citizens of D.C. were not.
A better argument, in my opinion, would have been for Judge Henderson to point out that the US Congress has the sole authority in the US Constitution to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever in regards to the District of Colombia, and see how it played out in the US Congress.
I for one would have liked to see all members of Congress put on record with regards to the Gun Control issue and the Second Amendment.
Personally I do not believe private citizens should be allowed to live in Washington D.C..
If I had my way Washington D.C. would house only the President and Staff, Vice President and Staff, Members of Congress and Staff while in session, Supreme Court Justices and Staff, the Cabinet and Staff, Military Members stationed in Washington D.C. or the Pentagon, certain Federal Government Employees, and just be a bunch of Government buildings and Monuments.
Last edited: