Mar 18, 2008

Supreme Court Hearing Arguments on DC Gun Ban: Bush Justice Dept. vs. the Constitution

It is a fundamental question of 2nd amendment of the Constitution. The Bush Justice Dept is trying to make an exception which cannot stand, unless the 2nd amendment means nothing. The CATO Institute is directly involved in this. Take a look at their sound argument and position of personal right to bear arms.
If a ban like DC's can be harmonized with a personal fundamental right to keep and bear arms, then no gun regulation will be deemed excessive. In effect, the Second Amendment will have been erased from the Constitution. Instead, the Court should hold that Washington, DC's ban on home possession of all functional firearms is both destructive as a matter of public policy and unconstitutional as a matter of law.

-- Robert A Levy, CATO

clipped from

Supreme Hears Arguments in Landmark Gun Case

The Supreme Court on March 18 heard oral arguments in DC v. Heller, a landmark lawsuit concerning the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's ban on guns. Cato scholar (and co-counsel to the plaintiffs) Robert A. Levy comments: "At root, the Heller case is simple. It's about self-defense: individuals living in a dangerous community who want to protect themselves in their own homes when necessary. The Second Amendment to the Constitution was intended to safeguard that right. Banning handguns outright is unconstitutional." A decision in the case is expected in June.