This case had been brought by, among others, a DC resident who carried a pistol on his job as a security guard but was prohibited from taking it home for his own defense in case such force was needed to protect his life while off-duty in one of the US’ most violent and dangerous cities. The court’s judgment resulted in a hysterical reaction from the country’s liberals, including DC Mayor Fenty, who ordered his government to appeal the decision.
Reaction from the country’s failing liberal newspapers was quick and predictable in their big city irrational hatred of self-defense. The Boston Globe (whose circulation is tanking, along with its parent, the NY Times) contributed the following in an alleged “news article” on the case, full of its usual bias (itals added):
“The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it would decide whether the Constitution grants individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for private use, plunging the justices into a divisive and long-running debate over how to interpret the Second Amendment's guarantee of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The court accepted a case on the District of Columbia's 31-year-old prohibition on the ownership of handguns. In adding the case to its calendar, for argument in March with a decision possibly in June, the court not only raised the temperature of its current term, but also inevitably injected the issue of gun control into the presidential campaign. The federal appeals court here, breaking with the great majority of federal courts to have examined the issue over the decades, ruled last March that the Second Amendment right was an individual one, not tied to service in a militia, and that the District of Columbia's categorical ban on handguns was unconstitutional…
Heller was one of six plaintiffs recruited by a wealthy libertarian lawyer, Robert A. Levy, who created and financed the lawsuit for the purpose of getting a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court...
The Supreme Court last looked at the Second Amendment nearly 70 years ago in United States v. Miller, a 1939 decision that suggested, without explicitly deciding, that the right should be understood in connection with service in a militia...(this is just a plain lie, but what we've come to expect from the Globe)
The District of Columbia, of course, is not a state, and one of the arguments its lawyers are making in their appeal is that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to "legislation enacted exclusively for the District of Columbia... In any event, a Supreme Court decision that finds the District of Columbia law unconstitutional would not necessarily invalidate other, more modest restrictions, like those that permit handgun ownership for those who pass a background check and obtain a license...(add sound of desperation here)
Dennis A. Henigan, a lawyer at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates strict gun control, said that if the justices agree with the appeals court, an important question for future cases will be "what legal standard the court will eventually adopt for evaluating other gun regulations..."(Brady is given ink but no one from the NRA or GOA)
The case is expected to be heard in March, with a decision in June, 2008. The impact of the decision, either way, is bound to effect the 2008 elections.
Return to The Nav Log