If you think the Supreme Court is going to say that individuals should have the right to own military-level weaponry, you have taken leave of reality. Sorry, but that is the way it is.
Note the interesting wording of the Court's decision to accept the DC case for review.
The question that the Court instructed the parties to brief: "Whether the following provisions [three sections of the D.C. gun law] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"
Interesting, isn't it? I know we're just reading tea leaves, but the Court doesn't seem interested in the (ridiculous) argument that you and I and grandma with her bedside S&W are some sort of latter-day militia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile
Devil's Advocate here:
Assume for a moment that state restrictions on firearms are lifted and the individual right to keep and bear arms is upheld. Where does it end? Does it? Can the private individual go buy howitzers? F16s? Stinger missiles? Nuclear weapons? Hell, I'm sure the defense contractors would be tripping over themselves to sell these kinds of things to people, but where exactly would the restrictions end?
This issue is bound to come up in at least one of the decisions, either for or against.
If the argument is centered on the INDIVIDUAL assuming the rights and responsibilities of what used to be state militias, should the individual also not have access to military hardware? After all, a state militia was a MILITARY entity. They fought organized campaigns and battles in the interest of a governing body. That sounds like a military to me, albeit not a federal one. If the argument is made that the individual differs from a state militia, then we're on very shaky ground indeed and you better hide 'em or start locking 'em up, cause it won't be long until they start banning private ownership by default.
|