the court is not addressing the right to bear arms outside the house or are they?
They did address both during arguments citing things like -
Judge Kennedy "In my view ... there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way," Justice Anthony Kennedy said early in the arguments. He suggested the right arose out of the need for settlers to protect their families "against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."
Justice Antonin Scalia went even further, advancing a long-standing contention that the 2nd Amendment was drafted to give citizens the right to arm themselves to fend off the tyranny of government.
Midway through the argument, the lawyer for the D.C. government, Walter Dellinger, seemed to sense which way the case was going and switched to an alternative argument, saying if the court does indeed find an individual right in the Constitution, then the right could be subject to "reasonable" regulation, such as the D.C. gun law.
"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. snapped.
Dellinger's opponent, Alan Gura, a Washington lawyer, argued that the 2nd Amendment went beyond the regulation of state militias, that self-defense was a primary purpose. The D.C. ban essentially made that impossible, he said.
chicagotribune.com |
