Kelly J
Regular Member
imported post
“D. C. Mayor Adrian Fenty does not see guns the way our Founders did. In his view, they are not tools for defending individual liberty, they are instruments of criminality...Fenty announced that the District would appeal to the Supreme Court a March decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that ruled that a District gun law was unconstitutional. The law in question flatly bans possession of a handgun—even in one’s own home—unless the gun was registered before 1976. ‘Wherever I go, the response from the residents is, Mayor Fenty, you’ve got to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court,’ said Fenty. In fact, however, the D. C. handgun suit pits individual law-abiding D. C. residents against a Constitution-flouting D. C. government. These individuals claim the government is violating their Second Amendment right to ‘keep and bear arms.’ The appeals court agreed. The District argues there is no such thing as an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the Framers did not intend to protect one... The generation of Americans who ratified the Second Amendment would see such an outcome as a prelude to the extermination of all the other rights of the ‘people’ recognized in the Constitution. Gun ownership, in their view, was not merely an individual right, it was a natural right. If individuals had a God-given right to life, liberty and property, it obviously followed that they also had a right to individually posses the means to protect their life, liberty and property. That meant guns.” —Terence Jeffrey
Extracted from the Patriot Post 07-32 Brief
“D. C. Mayor Adrian Fenty does not see guns the way our Founders did. In his view, they are not tools for defending individual liberty, they are instruments of criminality...Fenty announced that the District would appeal to the Supreme Court a March decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that ruled that a District gun law was unconstitutional. The law in question flatly bans possession of a handgun—even in one’s own home—unless the gun was registered before 1976. ‘Wherever I go, the response from the residents is, Mayor Fenty, you’ve got to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court,’ said Fenty. In fact, however, the D. C. handgun suit pits individual law-abiding D. C. residents against a Constitution-flouting D. C. government. These individuals claim the government is violating their Second Amendment right to ‘keep and bear arms.’ The appeals court agreed. The District argues there is no such thing as an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the Framers did not intend to protect one... The generation of Americans who ratified the Second Amendment would see such an outcome as a prelude to the extermination of all the other rights of the ‘people’ recognized in the Constitution. Gun ownership, in their view, was not merely an individual right, it was a natural right. If individuals had a God-given right to life, liberty and property, it obviously followed that they also had a right to individually posses the means to protect their life, liberty and property. That meant guns.” —Terence Jeffrey
Extracted from the Patriot Post 07-32 Brief
