I'm Calling My Shot

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.

I'm not sure when the Supreme Court ruling on the Washington D.C. hand gun ban is suppose to come down. However, I'm calling my shot now.

The Supreme Court will rule the ban unconstitutional. At least that's my landmark decision. Screw what everybody else says. I'm right, everybody else is wrong.

In reality this is one thing I've turned over and over in my mind. I've read legal opinions, articles and just about anything I could read on both sides of the issue. Does the Second Amendment apply only to a militia or to private citizens? After reading I still came to the same conclusion. Nobody really knows.

Some claim the intent of the original writers was to have state militias. Others make the argument that the arms should stay in the hands of the citizens to guarantee against the tyranny of government.

I think in this case, the Court should come down in favor of the people. I think the key phrase is "the rights of the people." The rights of the people should supersede all other rights. The law of Washington D.C. infringes on those rights.

Instead of outright bans the laws should be written to say who cannot own a gun. The target of laws should be on who lost the right to own and bear arms. Felons, mental patients, violent offenders should not be allowed to own guns. The Washington D.C. ban just eliminates the right for all in it's jurisdiction. The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be...deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." In this case a blanket is thrown over everyone and the liberty stated in the Fourth Amendment is taken away. If a person breaks a law, is tried and convicted of breaking the law and the law punishes that person by taking away the right to own a gun then due process is served. Otherwise the outright ban is taking away the liberty to own guns from all citizens. Due process is entirely bypassed.

I have no legal training. I maybe entirely wrong on my understanding of due process and how it applies to this case. This is just something I've tried to come to an understanding about and make my own conclusion by following logic.

The decision of the Court is anticipated to be historic. It could have far reaching implications on laws that limit or ban guns. Or the Court could punt and make a narrow ruling with out effecting other standing laws.