You have to wonder what affect, if any, the decision first by a District Court of Appeals to rule the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional and then the Supreme Court of the United States agreeing to hear that appeal, has to do with other judges and courts ruling against gun bans. Is it now becoming “in style” to rule against gun control? Does this have anything to do with an election year coming up?
It was announced yesterday that in California, of all places, a Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that San Francisco’s gun ban was invalid because it was a preemption of state law. In other words, Proposition H, voted in by the residents of San Francisco in November of 2005, was a law that was declared invalid by the Court because the city can’t ban guns because the state allows them.
The judge in this case, Judge Ignazio Ruvolo, said that the city failed to show that banning guns would only affect criminals and that by banning the guns would affect every citizen who has a constitutional right to own a gun.
This is great news for Americans and hopefully another indication that the courts are beginning to understand what it is the majority of Americans want – their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Tom Remington
Related Posts
- U.S. Supreme Court Could Hear D.C. Gun Ban Ruling
- Chicago Will Continue Gun Ban Despite Heller Supreme Court Decision
- U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Washington Gun Ban Case
- Why Do We Need The Fourteenth Amendment To Reinforce The Bill Of Rights?
- American Hunters and Shooters Association – For Gun Rights? Opposed to Gun Rights? Or Middle of the Road?
