High Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case

High Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case - washingtonpost.com


This is interesting. The ban was overturned, so is the Supreme court hearing it so the Ban can be restored? Or are they hearing it to make the decision universal across the whole country and not just an isolated DC case?

I guess we will find out in 6-7 months.

I honestly don't see how people can read it as a "state right" or "collective right" and not an "individual right". I think anyone that reads it that way is being a little dishonest, and just looking to support their belief that certain guns should be banned. The amendment clearly says the "right of the people..." not "the right of the state"

But, if it is a collective right, then it would seem to require states to have a "well regulated Militia" so that people can exercise their collective right. It would be a pointless amendment if people have the "right" to have a gun if they are in a militia, but have no right or opportunity to be in a militia. It would be like writing the first amendment like this: The right of the people to pray to whatever god they believe in, while in church, shall not be infringed. But then outlawing churches. This would be pointless and not actually bestow any real right.

If owning a gun is contingent on being in a militia, then every state MUST be required to have a militia and regulate it as they see fit and can afford. I would actually like this interpretation, as long as the regulation of the militia was really done to make the militia better and more prepared, and not done to make people unwilling to sign up. I would think the cost would keep the regulation reasonable and similar to what some states now require for a concealed weapon permit. Stuff like safety education and actually firing the gun training.