Quote of the Day - Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.
No matter which side you fall on, a difficult legal issue has arisen in our nation's capitol over their problem with handguns. Here's the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment: "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."
You may think you know - the right to bear arms, you say. But go back and read it again. Is it just the right of a well-regulated militia, made up of the people, to keep and bear arms? Or is it the right of people to keep and bear arms, whether or not they're in a militia? Beyond those two questions, two judges of the DC Court of Appeals, Judge Thomas B. Griffith and Senior Judge Laurence Silberman added another one: is gun ownership necessary any longer? Have we outgrown the need to have guns in our homes?
We're about to find out, if the District of Columbia has anything to say about it. The District's City Council has banned handguns, and that ban is being challenged in Court in the case of Shelly Parker v. District of Columbia, case No. 04-7041. From what MIPTC can see on the NRA's website, the gun lobby hasn't taken a position on the case yet, but the organization's opinion isn't really in doubt. We wouldn't be surprised to have the NRA come out in support of Ms. Parker and her right to possess a gun. Anti-gun advocates, on the other hand, support the ban.
We have a well-regulated militia. They're called the Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard and even the Marines, Seals and a bunch of other special forces and even some secret agencies like the CIA and the NSA. We have police forces across the country - the FBI, state and local agencies. Heck, the Texas Rangers can handle the whole Southwest, or so they say.
The Court wants to know if we still need guns in our homes? It's a legitimate question. Let me pose an equally legitimate question: can we just erase parts of the Constitution because our country has changed? Amending the Constitution is not the job of the Courts, it's a job for Congress and the several states - the people. Whether we've outgrown the need for guns is not the question to ask in this case. The Constitution is full of things that supposedly don't apply any more - take slavery for example - but we don't just erase parts of the Constitution in court decisions because they don't apply anymore.
The judicial debate over the Second Amendment should involve an interpretation of the language in the Amendment itself, not whether the Constitution is out of date. That's a matter for a different forum. Courts are supposed to interpret, not legislate. Let's hope the Court sticks to the issues within its purview.