Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
I believe it is a right of the people to own guns, although I will admit that I really dont know much on the subject. I really need to do some
research before I say yes or no.
What exactly is the supreme court ruling on? a ban on guns? A nation wide ban or what? What is the situation? can some one please fill me in?
District of Columbia v. Heller came about because the District of Columbia has the most restrictive gun control laws in the U.S. Private
citizens cannot own handguns, and any long guns (rifles or shotguns) must be either trigger locked or disassembled, with ammunition stored separately.
Mr. Heller (a security guard by trade) wanted to keep a handgun in his home for personal defense. He challenged the gun ban as unconstitutional, and
an appellate court agreed with him.
The arguments on both sides are fairly straightforward (as such things go). Mr. Heller contends that the second amendment gives him the right to keep
and bear arms, not just on the job, but for personal defense.
The District of Columbia contends that the second amendment does not confer a right to keep and bear arms on any specific person, but instead, grants
a 'collective right' to 'the people'...and that to exercise that right, one must be part of 'a well-regulated militia' (read: Police, National
Guard, or military).
Personally, I'm a firm believer in the right to keep and bear, as long as one is willing to bear the responsibility along with the firearm. I do wish
that Heller's legal team had based their challenge on the
ninth and
fourteenth amendments, rather than the second, simply to avoid any linkage
between service in a 'well-regulated militia' and the right to keep and bear arms.
Regardless of one's opinion on gun ownership, the District's position should scare the frog juice out of anyone with an ounce of common sense, in my
opinion. The idea that *any* right exists only in some 'collective' form is anathema to the very concepts upon which this country was founded. Once
the legal precedent of 'collective rights' exists, what's going to stop the Courts from deciding that other rights are only 'collective' in
nature? Imagine the implications of interpreting the first amendment in the same way that the District wishes to interpret the second. There would be
a 'collective right' to free speech, and free assembly, but no individual (or only a restricted group of individuals) could lay claim to that right.
That, essentially, means that the right does not exist.
[edit on 20-3-2008 by Brother Stormhammer]
[edit on 20-3-2008 by Brother Stormhammer]