U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Gun-Rights Case, page 5

I think what a lot of people are failing to see here with this argument is that this not a FEDERAL law, it's a STATE law (or in this case, district). The handgun ban applies ONLY to Washington DC, and is being appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States for Constitutional validity. Obviously, it's UN-Constitutional because it is in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

This is NOT an attempt of the current White House administration to take away the guns of the common man. The law, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, applies ONLY to Washington DC, banning residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, and unregistered firearms. This law was passed by the Washington DC CITY COUNCIL, NOT the federal government.

The Brady Bill, commonly known as the Assualt Weapons Ban of 1994, WAS a federal law signed into action by President Clinton. This FEDERAL law made it illegal for ANYONE to own a fully automatic firearm, such as the Tec-9, AK-47, M-16, etc. It also created very broad rules that various states have exploited to do determine what qualifies as an assault weapon and what doesn't. Thankfully, this law ended in 2004, and has not been renewed. However, there's a new bill out called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2007, spearheaded by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), that if passed, would be even more strict and oppressive of the Second Amendment. Different argument for a different thread.

With the DC handgun law going up to the Supreme Court, it will be the first time that a direct interpretation to the Second Amendment has taken place, in regards to the banning of firearms to the common man. The verdict is highly anticipated by both sides, pro-gun and anti-gun. While certain aspects of gun control should be implemented, it's important to keep in mind one thing that is statistically proven throughout the world: less guns to the public = higher crime rate. The argument that if you remove guns from the populace, crime will go down, is false. Prime example is Washington DC. Being as handguns are illegal to own, self-protection and home defense is equally minimized. This is a direct blow to the safety and self-preservation of the regular law-abiding citizen. Obviously, criminals that engage in violent crime do not have the same mindset as John Q. Citizen. They don't care about the legalities or laws regulating possession of firearms. They'll get what they're after one way or another.

What SHOULD happen in this case going before the Supreme Court is NOT the definition of a milita, but a strike-down of the current DC law stating that it's unconstitutional, and that the residents of Washington DC DO have the right to own and possess handguns.

If they want to get rid of handguns because of the false theory that less guns equals less crime, then lawmakers need to apply anti-gun ownership where it will be most effective: target criminals, repeat offenders, and improve police enforcement. The background check that takes place in other states taps into the federal database to see if someone is a convicted felon. If you're a felon convicted of a violent crime, then you don't get a handgun. And if for some reason you do get one and the cops get you, you get tossed in jail for a very long time, and the key gets thrown away. Put arms back in the hands of the law-abiding citizens, and violent crime will drastically fall. That's not my theory, that's statistically proven throughout the world.

It's sad to see that the actions of violent criminals and gangbangers have affected the general populace as much as it has, and hopefully this current DC law will be repealed, and the people can again carry and protect themselves. My hope is that this landmark case will trickle down into the states courts, and the super restrictive gun laws will be repealed nationwide.

Yes, I'm a card-carrying member of the NRA, and I'm active duty military.