Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnut
Right. All gun owners agree with that. The problem comes when certain laws prohibit ownership of ANY gun within a city, like the DC law or the one just passed by SF, prohibiting the ownership of all handguns. In this case, the "slippery slope" argument holds water. More and more restrictions appear in the books with every passing year. Law abiding citizens have less and less freedom. Meanwhile, crooks don't care. They're crooks.
|
I take your point, although DC's gun law bans private ownership of handguns, not long guns.
What's interesting here is that there are gun control groups who oppose DC's law and some leading liberals as well.
Quote:
|
And in recent decades, liberal scholars such as Harvard's Laurence H. Tribe and the University of Texas' Sanford Levinson have joined conservatives such as UCLA's Eugene Volokh in asserting that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect an individual's right to have a gun.
|
Supreme Court to hear challenge to D.C. gun law - Los Angeles Times
The Supreme Court can't continue to avoid the issue. They have to define "arms" and the connection between "a well regulated militia" and "the right to bear arms". IMHO, the word "right" would not have been used if the framers of the constitution had meant that possession of guns was to be limited to times when a militia was needed.
What does Obama say about all this?