Should the D.C. Handgun Ban Have Been Overturned?
Washington, D.C. is the nation’s political capital, but tragically it’s also known as America’s murder capital. In an effort to curb homicides, the city banned its citizens from owning handguns starting in 1975. More than 30 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned the law, saying "the absolute prohibition of handguns" was unconstitutional. The decision sparked a legal chain reaction as similar lawsuits were filed in Chicago and San Francisco. Was this the right verdict for the safety of D.C. citizens and the nation?
The Court Selectively Reviewed History
- From LCAV
By Legal Community Against Violence - To End Gun Violence
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Originalist Error
Judge Scalia gets it wrong even on his own terms on this one. He, being and originalist and a history buff, should realize that the facts and logic used above to support th malitia-service, or community right, is clearly correct. The concern was a "Federalist" one of a balancing of power between the national and state governments. The preexisting condition of an individual right to own a firearm (and the obligation, on some level, to do so) was controlled by the state authority. And, using that originalist school of thought, those that ratified the Constitution would have fully expected the state to maintain the power to regulate weapons for personal use. That is logically where the power should be. That way the difference in a person's need to carry and possess a gun in Wyoming from the needs and concerns of someone living in Killadelphia can be respected and accomodated. That is a better form of liberty.
- Dylan Voltaire
August 21, 2009 9:25AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.