the U.S. Supreme Court, and the justices should be issuing a long
awaited ruling on guns.
At issue is whether the District of Columbia's 32-year ban on
handguns violates a person's constitutional right to bear arms. One
side argues that the Constitution protects an individual's right to
own guns but the other says the wording ties it to service in a
state militia.
During oral arguments several months ago, the justices appeared
to back the view that the Second Amendment does allow individual
ownership. But even if they decide an individual right does exist,
the justices would still have to decide if the District's ban
violates that right.
The amendment was ratified in 1791, but the high court has never
issued a ruling on precisely what it means.
>

Alleged Kitten Killers Plead Not Guilty










Those who Recommended this also liked:


well I see the Supreme Court ruled Washington d.c’s law of owning a hand gun in their district illegal was unlawful. That’s great news and one more right that’s safe for a while. I’m all for having a weapon at home and in the vehicle if traveling a lot at night. But there is a bunch out there that shouldn’t be allowed to wear a gun in public because of their short tempers and if they start slinging lead out in a crowd of people ? That’s a potential disaster for everyone around!