The current courtroom battle over the Washington DC residents' 2nd Amendment rights is
shaping up well. We have the proponents:
"We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general...
And at least one good judge:
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the 2nd Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said.
And then we have the scariness:
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied.
Not only is it "quite a task" but it isn't their place. If you wish to rewrite the Bill of Rights, then do so. But you damn well better do it with the amendment process.
No comments:
Post a Comment