Prometheus 6

The Supreme Court has to take up the Washington D.C. handgun ban case.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit...ruled that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" and that "once it is determined -- as we have done -- that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them."

The court acknowledged that its decision was groundbreaking; only one other federal appeals court -- that of the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans -- has recognized an individual's right to gun ownership, and it nevertheless upheld the federal gun-control law at issue. Nine other circuits around the country have endorsed the collective right.

This language foreclosed the option of replacing the law. If it becomes national precedent, not only would it overturn the D.C. ban it would allow unprecedented stupidity.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

When the Constitution was written "arms" included swords. So if the Supreme Court supports the Court of Appeals here, that should mean sword canes are no longer illegal in New York. It will overturn the ban on fully automatic weapons, like the long-standing ban on machine guns. Frankly, the next move would be to challenge the very existence of carry permits and licensing as infringements.

Fortunately, the aforementioned automatic weapon ban shows it is possible to ban a specific class of weapon.

If the Supreme Court slaps down these activist judges, the problem won't be solved. Unfortunately, D.C.'s neighbors have a noted distaste for checking the illegal outflow of weapons. Criminals won't be immediately disarmed. But the Court of Appeals' decision wasn't pouring water on a drowning man, it was turning a firehose on a drowning man. It is now up to the Roberts court to throw him a line or put its foot in his face to push him under.