TexasCHLforum.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A case challenging the ban on private handgun ownership in the U.S. capital could lead to the first ruling by the Supreme Court since 1939 on the rights of Americans to bear arms.

Officials from the District of Columbia government this week asked the high court to agree the city's 31-year-old law banning private possession of handguns is constitutional.

Supporters and opponents of the law said the case could have far-reaching legal and political importance in affecting the nation's gun laws.

D.C. officials said a U.S. appeals court was wrong in its precedent-setting ruling in March that broadly interpreted an individual's constitutional right under the Second Amendment to bear arms, and that concluded the law violated those rights.

The Second Amendment says, "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."

City lawyers have argued the amendment guarantees the right to bear arms only for members of a militia, like today's National Guard, and not for individuals.

But the appeals court adopted the position that the Bush administration has advocated previously -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

"This has the potential to be the most significant ruling ever on the Second Amendment," said Paul Helmke, president of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He said the case also could be significant in the political debate leading up to next year's elections.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment since a decision 68 years ago when it upheld a federal gun control law but did not definitively resolve the constitutional issue.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, District of Columbia Attorney General Linda Singer said the March ruling marked the first time a federal appeals court has invoked the Second Amendment to strike down a gun-control law.

NO VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

"A law that bans handguns but permits private ownership of rifles and shotguns does not deprive anyone of the right to keep and bear arms, however that right is construed," she said.

Singer said the nation's three largest cities -- New York, Chicago and Los Angeles -- have laws banning handguns or tightly regulating their possession and use, that states have adopted various measures and a number of nations have banned handguns or grant permits in only exceptional cases.

"Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die," she said.

Six residents brought the challenge to the city's law, one of the strictest in the nation. One of their lawyers, Robert Levy of the Cato Institute, said they also would urge the Supreme Court to review the case.

He said those challenging the law seek a broader ruling from the Supreme Court, one that could apply nationwide and not just in Washington.

If the justices agree to decide the case, arguments most likely would be scheduled for next year, with a ruling expected by the end of June.

mcub wrote:You know, honestly, I would not mind a REAL gun free society; the problem is the law would only insure we have an unarmed lawful citizenry, coexisting with armed unlawful citizenry. I do not believe that coexistence would be very pleasant.

mcub wrote:You know, honestly, I would not mind a REAL gun free society; the problem is the law would only insure we have an unarmed lawful citizenry, coexisting with armed unlawful citizenry. I do not believe that coexistence would be very pleasant.

flintknapper wrote:The problem isn't "weapons" which are just tools anyway.

The problem is PEOPLE.

It seems to me that every generation is less moral and compassionate toward their fellow man. More and more it is all about "ME & I".

"I" want it my way.
"I" don't care what you think.
"I" am the only person who is important here.
"I" will do as "I" please.
"I" will not be held responsible/accountable.
"I" am better than you and more deserving.

Etc, etc, etc......

With these attitudes, no wonder... we see so much conflict.

Too many people today... have an "I" problem IMO.

stevie_d_64 wrote:

flintknapper wrote:The problem isn't "weapons" which are just tools anyway.

The problem is PEOPLE.

It seems to me that every generation is less moral and compassionate toward their fellow man. More and more it is all about "ME & I".

"I" want it my way.
"I" don't care what you think.
"I" am the only person who is important here.
"I" will do as "I" please.
"I" will not be held responsible/accountable.
"I" am better than you and more deserving.

Etc, etc, etc......

With these attitudes, no wonder... we see so much conflict.

Too many people today... have an "I" problem IMO.

This is why nothing is going to change...

Isn't it ironic how people like us who vehemently fight to retain our right to keep and bear arms respect life more than those who wish to use instruments (exactly like what we use to defend life) to take lives...

Indoctrinating a "victim" mentality in our society will not change the minds of those who do not respect life...

Therefore I will never, ever, give up my right to keep and bear arms for mine and others well-being because someone else believes that less guns means less crime or death...

Those that believe a utopian society is a society made up of absolutes, I believe a utopian soiciety is made up of a balance of ideals and beliefs and that those who are respectful of life, and others well-being will defend against those who do not...