Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (198740)	3/9/2007 6:09:16 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793903

I haven't read the opinion, but I assume the judge made a plausible (though in my opinion, wrong) conclusion from a reading of the Second Amendment. The Amendment reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. DC isn't a State, it was originally directly ruled by the federal government. The drafters of the Constitution were concerned with federal tyranny against the sovereign States, as well as the possibility of tyranny by the States against the People. If DC isn't a State, then there is no need for a militia to guarantee the "security of a free State". OK, I can see the argument at least. BUT - once DC became "home ruled", that argument is severely undermined. The citizens of a "home ruled" DC could be said to have the same concerns as the citizens of the several "free States".