13 November 2007

More District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

I have to admit that all this talk about rights is amusing to me.

It seems that it has gotten lost that the District of Columbia's gun laws were locally enacted. Not to mention that most law abiding DC citizens support it.

On the other hand, it bothers the heck out of a lot of people who don't live in Washington, DC.

Case in point, Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute, plaintiff's lawyer, and pretty much the driving force behind all this.

Though Levy is a native of the dis­trict, he moved to Maryland 25 years ago. Today he splits his time between a gated community in Naples, Fla., and a home in Asheville, N.C. The investment analyst-turned-lawyer doesn’t own a gun and doesn’t want one. For Levy, the case really isn’t about guns.

Really? I have to admit curiosity as to why he is raising this issue then??? Is he out to get a definitive ruling on the law?

This may change the tack of this post, but the NRA (another non-DC resident) is worried about this and wants to bypass the court system. It wants the D.C. Personal Protection Act passed by the Legislature (yet more non-DC residents who don't represent the Citizens of DC). This legislation that would repeal the ban and moot out the Second Amendment issue.

Now, I have to admit that my opinion is that the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it refers to the arming language in Article I, Section 8 and only means that the militia will never be disarmed: not to any personal right to gun ownership.

Additionally, I find Justice Robert's statement at his confirmation hearing to be ambiguous. I don't trust Justice Alito either after reading the U.S. v. Rybar(103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996)) decision. I think the court will only clarify US v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), or not bother to hear the case.

Either way, the Miller Opinion remains legal precedent. This is why the NRA DOESN'T want to see Heller go to court.

But that is neither here nor there in relation to my point.

My point is that the District's gun law was locally enacted and locally supported. The people who are trying to get rid of it aren't citizens, weren't elected by the people of DC and definitely don't represent the people of DC.

It was desire to self-govern which was a driving force behind the revolution, not taxes, guns, free speech, etcetera.

Especially not guns.

From what I know of the founding fathers. I believe they would support the District of Columbia from the outside meddling in its affairs.

But as the DC licence plates say these days:


No comments: