Judging Guns
The Supreme Court should not deprive governments of their ability to protect public safety.


Thursday, March 20, 2008; A14


BY THE END of oral arguments Tuesday in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, a majority of Supreme Court justices seemed to embrace the notion that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Such a conclusion, however, should not automatically prove fatal to the District's admittedly tough gun control law.

Every right, including freedom of speech, is subject to some limitations. The legal and public policy arguments for allowing broad government regulation of firearms are compelling. District law bans private ownership of handguns and requires long guns to be kept in the home disassembled or stored with a trigger lock. This approach reflects the grim realities of an urban setting where handguns account for a disproportionate number of homicides and are used in a great majority of robberies and rapes. Speaking on the courthouse steps after the Supreme Court arguments, D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier reiterated that "a weapon that is easily concealed, that can be taken inside of schools, inside of churches, inside of government buildings without anyone's knowledge . . . is something that we don't want in the District of Columbia."

Six justices active in questioning during Tuesday's arguments seemed to at least contemplate an individual rights approach. If a majority embraces such an approach, it is far from clear what legal standard they would then apply to determine the constitutionality of the D.C. gun law. Reaching consensus on this issue may very well be the biggest challenge for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. We urge the justices to adopt the lowest standard of review to allow governments maximum flexibility in enacting laws meant to protect public safety. If a majority cannot agree on this, we would hope that they would heed the suggestions of Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who argued for a tougher standard but one that clearly permits sensible regulation, such as licensing, background checks and a ban on machine guns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8031903161.html

Anyone who didn't vote for Al Gore can be happy in the knowledge that this even came to be

While likely gun ownership would not be banned, just think how deliciously ironic it would be if the ultra rightwing zealots of the Reagan/Bush41/Bush43/Clinton days would be the ones to
take away people's guns

Then when they lock up everyone for illegal ownership, create martial law and concentration camps, they can rest assured in their knowledge that THEY, the ones who voted for Reagan and both Bush's and will vote for McCain and hate Obama, created their own concentration camps and gas chambers

So funny it will be.
Remember, guns don't kill,just the Bush family and the people that voted for Bush ironically will be the ones to lose their right if the SC moves in mysterious ways (aka-whatever W tells them to
do, they will)...(and the same people want to ban Abortion...yeah...they will get what they deserve).

Take your crap elsewhere Graham, and allow for topic discussion.