*** I'd Rather LIVE Than Own A Gun ...
SOON, very hopefully, we won't be seeing every day on TV the aftermath
of a murderer's handiwork --- the USE Of A HANDGUN or automatic war
weapon to kill innocent human beings! Your "fellow" citizens.
That's because all indications point to a Supreme Court decision that,
like others before, including from NINE federal appeals courts, "the
Second Amendment recognizes only the 'collective' right to of a state
to organize a militia."
So, all you gun-fools out there, better HIDE your pistols and AKs.
Like in China, they could soon be "illegal" here.
WE HOPE!
I'd advise you nitwits to acquire KNIVES. Knives, wielded by humans,
also kill people, if that's your aim.
-------------
"Take the Gun Case"
"The District waits to find out whether its ban will become the
nation's Second Amendment battleground."
Editorial
The Wa****ngton Post
Wednesday, November 14, 2007; A18
THE SUPREME Court yesterday stayed silent on whether it will hear a
challenge concerning the constitutionality of the District's gun ban.
In doing so on a day when they were expected to announce their plans,
the justices kept alive the possibility that they will hear the
appeal. But their inaction also suggests that they are split over how
to handle it.
A likely sticking point is on how broadly the justices should rule on
the District's challenge if they grant review. Should they use the
case to decide whether the Second Amendment bestows an individual
right to bear arms -- a ruling that would have ramifications for the
entire country? Or, because the District is a unique jurisdictional
animal -- neither state nor city -- should the justices tailor the
question before them to force a narrow ruling that applies only to it?
There are risks for the District either way. Unlike on many other hot-
button issues such as abortion or affirmative action, the court has
not spoken on such a fundamental Second Amendment matter since 1939,
in U.S. v. Miller, a case in which the defendants invoked the Second
Amendment to challenge their convictions for trans****ting a sawed-off
shotgun across state lines. The court found that argument meritless
because such a weapon would not have been suitable for militia use.
While this and other language in the Miller opinion bolster the
District's argument that the Second Amendment does not bestow an
individual right to bear arms, other parts leave a different
impression. More recently, the intellectual momentum in legal and
academic circles has run toward recognizing an individual right.
Even in the face of such risks and even with conflicting evidence
about the effectiveness of gun bans in reducing homicides, we would
urge the justices to take the case. If they decline to do so, it would
leave intact the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit that struck down the D.C. gun ban. That decision conflicts
with rulings from nine other federal appeals courts concluding that
the Second Amendment recognizes only the "collective" right of a state
to organize a militia.
The justices could follow the lead of Appeals Court Judge Karen
LeCraft Henderson, who wrote in her dissent in the D.C. gun case that
the Second Amendment does not apply to the District because it is not
a state. While such a narrow ruling could help salvage the gun ban, it
could have negative consequences for the District in other contexts.
But the District's gun ban need not be invalidated even if the
justices find an individual right in the Second Amendment. All rights
-- from free speech to the right to assemble -- are subject to limits
and regulation. So, too, should a right to bear arms.
http://www.wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111302061.html
|
