On Tuesday the Supreme Court seemed ready to strike down, at least in part, Washington D.C.’s total ban on handguns. Chief Justice John Roberts was skeptical from the beginning about the ban, stating, “What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?” A majority of the justices are likely to agree with the Chief Justice.
On the other side of the debate, Justice Stephen Breyer felt that a city with a high crime rate, such as D.C., may have a case for a handgun ban.
The mayor of Washington D.C. was discouraged by the debate. A lifting of the ban in his view would create negative consequences. He stated, “More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime.”
The 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Reading this, it seems to me that the D.C. handgun ban is reasonable and Constitutional. The handguns owned by the citizens of D.C. are not tied to serving in a militia, nor does the law ban other guns such as rifles and shotguns. Handguns were made to do one thing, not hunt, but to kill human beings. The government should reserve the right to regulate handguns and other weapons, such as assault rifles, that serve this deadly purpose.
Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns– [My Way News]
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Supreme Court, handgun ban, D.C. handgun ban, 2nd amendment, supreme court handgun ban, supreme court 2nd amendment
“being necessary to the security of a free State”
That line could also be interpreted as to the security of a free person, the right to keep and bear arms.
mmhmm, the 2nd amendment can be interpreted many ways, I was just offering mine.
i know, i totally agree with you, im just trying to get the other side of the argument going.