The Supremes and the Second Amendment

[Ed W]

I've read several stories about the case regarding private possession of a handgun in DC, and each one seems to take a different viewpoint.  One said that the court shouldn't give Americans unfettered access to handguns.  Another said that the case could be decided on very narrow grounds, i.e. that DC is not a state and does not have the same legal status, therefore the second amendment has no bearing.  Another story said the court will rule on the intent of the second amendment, what it means and what it is designed to do.

But each of these seemed to be more speculation rather than real news.

My feeling is that stupid people should not have guns.  I'm not stupid, therefore I'm OK to keep a bunch of guns around the house.  Now, that sounds facetious, but I think it's how many people view gun control.  "I'm OK, but that dumb-aXX brother in law of mine is too dim to tie his own shoes!  He shouldn't be allowed to have a butter knife let alone a gun."  The bro-in-law, of course, thinks much the same thing.

My feeling is that the Supremes will rule on a few narrow points and avoid giving us a definitive view of the second amendment.  It would not be politic for the court to force such a divisive issue just before a presidential election.  

 

[Conan71]

Point is, the DC law has not kept the wrong element from possessing guns there.  Laws like that will never work because the very people it's intended to keep from using or possessing  them don't pay attention to laws in the first place.  They don't have a friggin' clue there is even such a law.

All it does is prevent those who are hypersensitive to the laws from freely enjoying a Constitutionally-given right.