Should the Supreme Court uphold or overturn the DC handgun ban?

Since it has been a popular subject here the past few days, and the decision could have an impact on the elections, whose side would you vote for to win?

And just in case you missed it or don't have enough information to decide, here's a rather well balanced and unbiased coverage (with commentary), on the issue.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp

(edit to add link)

The kids are packing and they SHOULD be wondering if the person they want to rob might be carrying.

The most egregious mass murders take place where guns are banned. Virginia Tech is a prime example. NOBODY there could have a gun. But one guy missed the notification. And he killed 30 some people. But there are a fair number of DUers who think that's just fine because the NO GUNS policy handles those kinds of situations. Except it doesn't.

For a number of reasons:


1) First and foremost, its the correct decision. The federalist/antifederalist papers and the bulk historical documentation confirm the intent of the second amendment beyond a reasonable doubt.

2) It would benefit Democrats to have this issue buried before election time.


3) Overturning the lower courts ruling and/or ruling against the intended meaning of the second amendment would wake a mostly sleeping giant...and would put guns centerstage politically, for many years to come.

4) The circuits are divided, and a resolution is needed.

5) Brady/vpc/<insert gun ban org here>...they need limits to which they can go legally, and limits to what they can apply the term "reasonable" to, and upholding the lower courts ruling is a step closer to establishing them.

6) The government also needs limitations as to just how far they can restrict we the people. Upholding the lower courts ruling is a step in that direction.

Its a shame that it has to come to this, since the bill of rights was written specifically to limit the powers of government, thereby protecting the rights of "we the people". It even says so in the preamble to the bill of rights.






On edit: Now can someone please explain to me how effectively banning guns, trampling the rights of people, and emboldening criminals could be construed as "beneficent"?

you ask if the scotus should uphold or overturn the handgun ban, but in the poll, a vote for "uphold" means that you favour 'overturning' the ban(which i do).

The final ruling will uphold the lower court but they will narrow it to only the federal gov't and its entities which includes DC. The ruling will not be applicable to the states. Once again they will not incorporate the 2nd Amendment,

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled government is not obligated to protect an individual citizen unless she/he is custody.

The only one capable of defending an individual at all times is that individual and IMO that person is entitled to keep and bear effective, efficient tools to defend self as so clearly stated in some state constitutions.

Today, the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense is a handgun.

My opinion is firmly grounded in the words Pennsylvania used in its constitution adopted 28 Sept. 1776 before it ratified the U.S. Constitution on 12 Dec. 1787.

Pennsylvania said in its constitution, A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA dated 28 Sept. 1776, "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Pennsylvania also said "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Because those rights were inalienable, PA's citizens could not have given those rights away when they ratified the U.S. Constitution.

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 and retained its statements about "inalienable rights".

Vermont used almost identical words in its constitution of 1777.

For Pennsylvania, Vermont, and other states that declared self-defense is an "inalienable right" their citizens have that right protected by either the Second Amendment or the Ninth Amendment.

As of 2006, only Wisconsin, Illinois and Washington D.C. prohibit law-abiding citizens from legally using concealed-carry handguns for self-defense.