Wow! Kennedy! I can't believe it:
The Supreme Court justices, hearing a historic argument on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, signaled they are likely to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and rule that homeowners have a right to keep a gun for self-defense.This is great news for not only those in DC who have had their rights taken away from them but for the rest of the nation to ensure that our rights aren't taken away.But if the oral arguments are any guide, the outcome will not be unanimous. Several justices said they believed the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the state's right to maintain a "well-regulated militia," not to give gun rights to individuals.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. "In my view, there is a general right to bear arms" that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.
Most Americans believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding persons to "keep and bear arms." But the legal meaning of this provision remains in doubt. The high court has never invoked this right to strike down a gun law nor has it ruled that it protects a personal right to own a gun.
I was going to put up the dancing "Woo Hoo" but I'll wait until the ruling :-)
(via)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Hopefully the court will strike down the ban, but what is really needed is a redoing of the amendment to remove the militia clause altogether.
We won't need to do that if the court strikes the ban. The precedent will take care of that.
This is essentially the same court that decided three years ago that governments can take private property for whatever reason - so, yeah, I'm not "woo-hooing" just yet.
That's why it's so shocking that he's one the right side of the law (that and the fact that he likes to look outside the US for precedent).
Even if one believes that a right to bear arms is necessary for personal protection, the perceived need to do so is a sad reflection on our society. I think that as Christians, being given the right to bear arms to injure or kill other human beings, even in self defense, is something to be mourned and reflected upon solemly, not something to be granted a dancing "woo hoo".
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.