http://www.nytimes.com/…

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready on Tuesday to embrace, for the first time in the country’s history, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects the right to own a gun for personal use.

That may be the easy part.

The harder question in the case challenging the District of Columbia’s handgun ban is determining what kind of restrictions the government could constitutionally place, in the name of public safety, on the newly recognized right. The answer to that question, on which the outcome of the case will turn, was less clear.

The argument was lively and intense, running 22 minutes over its allotted hour and 15 minutes. Despite “starting afresh,” as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put it, on a subject the court had not addressed since 1939, the justices appeared at least as well informed as the lawyers on minute details of English and American legal history.

Sounds like a fun time. Even if they rule against freedom I don’t see how it’s going to change anything. Freer gun states will do their thing and fascist states will do theirs. People like myself will only put up with the states crap for so long. At some point we will just stop even trying to play nice and follow the rules.

One thing about the old Massachusetts law… DC is under federal jurisdiction not state. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated so it could be an argument if this were about a state law but it’s not. I also don’t see how not having loaded weapons is in anyway the same has not have any.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.