by RNH Nello

Created on: May 22, 2009   Last Updated: May 23, 2009

You would think that the recent case of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER [2008]; (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370; which affirmed Heller in his defense would make the questions about the right to keep and bear arms finally moot, but no, the forces of darkness (those advocating gun control) are striving even more diligently than even before. For those interested, the Court ruling opinion was written by Justice Scalia with dissenting opinions written by justice Stevens and Justice Breyer. The entire case text can be found at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

and includes the ruling opinion plus both dissents as well as a syllabus and is (in its entirety about 95 pages in length.

The ruling opinion held the primary position that the, " . . . Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. . . . "

In addition in section 'f'' it states in part, " . . . None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes . . . " In this use of precedents the court (in this ruling), without referring to it directly, can be said to have validated the work ("Supreme Court Gun Cases") of David B. Kopel, Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., and Alan Korwin. Which demonstrates through nearly 100 court rulings the validity of the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The point here is that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that is not to be infringed. That doesn't mean that the States cannot enact laws restrict such individual gun use relative to felons, however, for the non-felon citizen no infringement should exist.

Even so, thousands of laws have been enacted restricting gun ownership of the non-felon. While it has become acceptable among some to use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to enact these restricts, not all constitutional scholars accept that this is a valid use of Constitutional delegated powers.

In addition those who advocate increasing control of guns and restriction of this individual right to keep and bear arms often justify their actions and the credibility of their 'cause' by stating that such laws are to make people

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>