Excerpts From Friend-of-Court Briefs

The D.C. gun case exposes strange bedfellows and internal rifts in the administration

By

March 7, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (24)

Related Articles

Photo Gallery: D.C. Gun Recovery Unit

"It would be fundamentally perverse to transform this provision, designed to protect state interests against federal interference, into a federal restriction on traditional state regulatory powers.

"While we agree with the District that the Second Amendment protects not private rights but rather militia-linked rights, the position we urge is important if the Court should hold that there is a private right protected against federal interference. Further, we submit that even if the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, it does not preclude handgun bans, such as those enacted by the District and Chicago."

You might be interested in...

Tags:
courts,
Washington, DC,
gun control and gun rights,
Supreme Court

Reader Comments Read all comments (24)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I support the right for an individual to own a gun. Although I do not own a gun myself, I believe the second amendment should countinue to protect that right, and any outrageous limitations would certainly infringe on the Founding Father's initial idea. However, I believe the right was intended for law-abiding citizens, not those who abuse priviliges.

Ellen H. of CO 1:22PM March 31, 2008

The Second Amendment does not grant a right to bear arms. It merely protects the right which is the individual's by virtue of his being human. An individual right to bear arms exists irrespective of government. An individual human being has the right to his life. He therefore has the right to defend his life. And it follows that he also has the right to the means necessary to defend his life. An Individual can delegate his self-defense right to a government, but does not surrender that right. In emergency situations, eg. when there is no time to call the police, an individual has the right to use deadly force to defend himself against an aggressor. A gun is often the best tool to use in defense of his life.

Jerry Varner of CO 6:16PM March 30, 2008

I am sure that the Founding Fathers meant that individuals can bear arms. There is definitely a need to put controls on bearing arms because like anything else, there are always a few people who will push the limits and take things out of control. However, I think that it is an infringement on our rights as citizens of the United States to say that we cannot have guns. There is no need to take something that is necessary away because of the people who misuse it.

Megan M. of CO 6:24PM March 19, 2008

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos