REPLY TO THREAD
|
Subject
|
Does the 2nd Amendment give "individuals" the right to bear arms or just for members of a "well-regulated militia"?
|
User Name
|
|
|
|
|
Font color:
Font:
|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
Fighting for our right to bear arms [link to www.boston.com]
"...DOES THE Constitution's Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms or is that right reserved exclusively for members of a "well-regulated militia"? That is the question the US Supreme Court will consider today in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, a Second Amendment challenge to the District of Columbia's ban on all functional firearms.
I helped bring this case to court on behalf of six Washington, D.C., residents who want to keep functional firearms in their homes to defend themselves and their families should the need arise. But Washington's law bans all handguns not registered before 1976 and requires that lawfully owned shotguns and rifles in the home be kept unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. There is no exception for self-defense. Washington, often known as the "murder capital of the nation," cannot defend its citizens and will not allow them to defend themselves.
This case requires, at a minimum, two findings from the Supreme Court: First, the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms - not a right limited to people engaged in state militia service. Second, the district's ban on all functional firearms violates that individual right and is, therefore, unconstitutional..."
|
Pictures (click to insert)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Next Page >> |
|