As part of my continuing education of readers as to what everyone is talking about in regards to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to rule on District of Columbia vs. Heller, or more commonly known as the D.C. gun ban, I hand selected a couple of editorials out of today’s online papers for you to read.
What I found today were two articles both of which seem to be trying to say that each side of the issue is relying on history proving their interpretation of the Second Amendment is the right one.
The first article comes from the Houston Chronicle written by J.R. Labbe called, “Court taking a loaded gun-law case”. Here’s a excerpt from that article which might help to set the tone. I suggest that readers interested in this debate follow the links and read the articles as they do contain some interesting perspectives that might help to foretell how the U.S. Supreme Court may rule.
“The case has the potential to be the equivalent of Brown v. the Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. It’s that important,” said Alan Korwin, who has written three books and co-written seven on gun laws. “The justices are confronting head-on the Second Amendment. They are talking about the rights of individuals in the framing of the question.”
“While a Supreme Court ruling in this case is likely to be narrow, it has the potential to be huge in that the Heller case will give the court an opportunity to define the Second Amendment as protective of an individual civil right,” said Dave Workman, senior editor of “Gun Week” and co-author with Alan Gottlieb of America Fights Back: Armed Self Defense in a Violent Age. “That’s been debated for the past 68 years, despite earlier high court rulings that tended to affirm the Second Amendment does protect a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.”
The second article for your consideration comes from Associated Content, written by Brant McLaughlin, called, “Brady Center: Supreme Court Can Reverse Bad Gun-Rights Decision”. You probably can already guess the tone of this article. Yes and no. It might surprise you to learn that this article contains more than just Brady Center rhetoric.
Here’s a excerpt.
The Center claims that the “right to bear arms” that was protected by the Second Amendment had to do with nothing except the right of the states to maintain local militias-and, as those militias were almost always comprised of white males aged 18 to 45, the Second Amendment actually has nothing to say about severe restrictions on gun ownership, which the Center usually upholds as being Constitutional.
What’s more, claims the Brady Center, the Second Amendment is merely an anachronism now, as the militia of 1776 is gone in our day and age.
Once again we see where one side believes and says it can prove through court history that the Second Amendment is an individual right guaranteed under our Constitution. The other side, in this case the Brady Center, says that not only was the Second Amendment intended only to allow states the right to maintain militias but that the Second Amendment is no longer a necessary part of our Constitution because we no longer have militias.
Tom Remington
Related Posts
- Blaming Gun Violence On “Twisted Interpretation” Of Second Amendment
- District Of Columbia Vs. Heller, At Last An Interpretation of Second Amendment
- Two-Thirds Of States Support Second Amendment Incorporation
- 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause Incorporated Into 2nd Amendment
- Second Amendment Incorporation Into Fourteenth Amendment – Open Discussion
