So the Supreme Court ruled that the gun ban in Washington DC was unconstitutional. That is great, but…aside from the tight majority (5 to 4), there seemed to be a lot of things left open, or down right closed.

I’m glad they defined it as individuals rights, that we as a person have the right to own (keep) and bear arms. I’m not happy with the end of the statement used “self defense in our homes”, to me that sounds too much like opening a door to rid people of the ability to carry them outside the home.

They are also very vague on what guns are open for ban, and actually say that if the congress gets to a gun early enough before it becomes “common use” they can ban it. Which brings up another contradictory remark, that “common use” weapons are ok, but those that are used by the military are not - exactly how is that defined? Common use today would include a lot of military type clones the AR for example. There is also a flood of military surplus weapons out there too. You can even argue, that for a militia to have any sort of effect, they would need weapons on some level to that of the military.

Posted in Constitutional, Politico No Comments »