Right to keep and bear arms upheld.

Tweet

On March 9, 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms for individual citizens. This case was in reponse to the D.C. gun ban. The court found that the District of Columbia had no constitutional right to prevent gun ownership by honest, sane, qualified citizens. The url below contains more details. http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Jonah+Goldberg%3a+Gunning+for+2nd+Amendment%2c+the+left+admits+a+defeat&articleId=007a0794-d639-436a-94e9-4c2e75119062 Having read the appropiate Federalist papers which apply to the second admendment to the constitution, I totally agree with this court ruling that the second admendment means what it says. Furthermore, there are still plenty of orginal writings by the founding fathers explaining it. There is no question by any honest objective person who has done a minimum of research that the 2d admendment to the constitution means exactly what this court said. My question to you is, "Was this a correct ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit?" Note, I did not say do you think guns should be banned. That is not the same thing. The law is about what is written so we can be governed by laws, not the whims of individuals. "Given the laws and the constitution as they are written, not as you wish they were, was this court ruling correct?" Those who want guns banned from private ownership should have the 2d admendment repealed. It is as simple as that. I'll repeat the question. "Was this a correct ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit?"