GMontag's Journal: DC Gun Control Violates Amendment II of the Constitution

A post by 'mediageek' at Reason's Hit & Run informs us of a surprisingly sensible decision by the DC Circuit Court. In part:

We think the Second Amendment was similarly structured. The prefatory language announcing the desirability of a well-regulated militia -- even bearing in mind the breadth of the concept of a militia [which the court had earlier concluded "was a large segment of the population" rather than just a government-selected National Guard-like subgroup -EV] -- is narrower than the guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment does not protect "the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms," but rather "the right of the people." The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias....

[I]f the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters' view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right's most salient political benefit -- and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.

More info and analysis here.

Before the "DC is not a State" folk get all blustery, they rejected that argument too.

Glad to see that one....

[robi2106]

go down in flames finally. I always thought it was stupid. Now there will be important law makers that could have armed guards instead of just thugs and cops being armed. A bit more balanced in my opinion.

jason