Okay, here is my argument on gun control. It had to be coming right? The government may be able to ban certain types of weapons, or certain cosmetic features (exotic weapons, not in common use - this is based on Supreme Court rulings). However, in Heller vs. the District of Columbia, it has been made clear to us that the government cannot ban guns (like has been done in the U.K. for example) because it is not a right given by government. Our right to self defense, and to bear arms, is inherent and pre-exists government.
From what I understand, this is the case that Consitutional lawyers base their findings from. Here is an excerpt from the ruling,
"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16" http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Read the full ruling here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
No comments:
Post a Comment