Fenty makes his case for appealing Parker. And leads off with a whopper:

The central meaning of the Second Amendment has long been settled in the courts.

Err, no. It hasn’t. We currently have a split among the various circuits. More:

The last time the Supreme Court directly addressed the provision — which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — was in 1939, in a case called United States v. Miller. The court said that the Second Amendment’s “obvious purpose” is to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of state military forces (the militia mentioned in the amendment), not to provide a private right to own weapons for one’s own purposes.

Also, incorrect. The court asked for clarification regarding Miller’s weapon (a short barreled shotgun) and never addressed the issue.

For decades, the lower courts followed that pronouncement. They repeatedly rejected claims that the Second Amendment provides a defense against laws regulating gun possession and use that have no connection with service in a state militia. Although gun proponents vigorously insisted that the Second Amendment protects their right to possess and use guns for private purposes, the courts recognized that their view lacks support in its language and history.

Again, depends on the courts. Two courts hold the individual rights view. And:

The handgun ban has saved countless lives

I dunno. Have you checked out your murder rate? And the last bit:

The next step in the court’s analysis was also extraordinary and wrong. On the basis of Supreme Court precedent, even this court agreed that the Second Amendment, however one reads it, is not infringed on by “reasonable restrictions” on gun possession and use. The court ruled, though, that banning any “type” of weapon is never reasonable. The idea that the Constitution forbids a government to ban any type of weapon regardless of the reasons is unsupportable. It is plainly relevant that the District allows residents to possess other perfectly effective firearms, especially given how much more death and misery handguns have caused than those other firearms.

A total ban on handguns and requiring weapons in the home be unloaded and locked up is a reasonable restriction?

Posted in uncategorized on September 4th, 2007 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |