Tapsearch Com EditorWashington Post goes 180 degrees on gun law
July 20th 2007 00:09
From today's editorial:
Note that, while they say they support the law, they say a pro-gun ruling is arguably legally correct.
But, from an editorial I cited in The American Spectator when the appeals court decision came out:
As a matter of public safety and public policy, we support the District's gun control regime. We believe that compelling public safety concerns allow regulation of weapons even if a right to bear arms is recognized.
But the D.C. Circuit's decision, written by Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman, is not without merit -- and that's where the risk comes in. The idea that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms is not exclusive to right-wing gun nuts, as adversaries sometimes call them. Some of the brightest liberal minds in the legal community have come -- albeit reluctantly -- to the same conclusion.
But the D.C. Circuit's decision, written by Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman, is not without merit -- and that's where the risk comes in. The idea that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms is not exclusive to right-wing gun nuts, as adversaries sometimes call them. Some of the brightest liberal minds in the legal community have come -- albeit reluctantly -- to the same conclusion.
Note that, while they say they support the law, they say a pro-gun ruling is arguably legally correct.
But, from an editorial I cited in The American Spectator when the appeals court decision came out:
IN OVERTURNING the District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns yesterday, a federal appeals court turned its back on nearly 70 years of Supreme Court precedent to give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment.
| 29 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
