Interesting take on the DC Gun Ban case
Quite aside from the question of whather a gun ban violates our right to keep and bear arms, is the question of whether the DC Metro Government has ANY authority to make any laws at all, much less unconstitutional ones. This author points out that the Constitution flatly says NO... and suggests that that fact might be brought out before the Supreme Court when it hears the DC Gun Ban case this summer.
Could the entire DC Metro government be dissolved as a result of this case and the facts it is bringing to light, about constitutional requirements upon the government of the city of Washington DC?
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kovach/080107
District of Columbia: open mouth, insert gun
Loony Left may have bitten off more than it can chew
Tom Kovach
January 7, 2008
Like a spoiled toddler trying to punch a parent, the District of Columbia is about to lash out against the Congress that gave it birth. Given that the issue is gun possession, the District may be in a suicidal situation. At the very least, Congress should give the DC Metro Government the spanking that it so richly deserves.
The ultimate question to be decided in a pending case before the United States Supreme Court is, "Who's in charge here?" According to District "leaders," the case hinges upon the question of whether the Second Amendment preserves an individual right or a collective right to keep and bear arms. But, in the minds of most sensible citizens, that question is stare decisis (Latin for "already decided"; a legal doctrine that prevents the same question from being repeatedly brought into court). The District is appealing to the Supreme Court against a decision by the Court of Appeals last year. That decision upheld the traditional understanding of the Second Amendment, and thereby overturned the District's ban on handgun possession. Given that all other rights specified in the Bill of Rights are individual rights (except for the Tenth Amendment, which protects states' rights), it would seem to be a "no-brainer" that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
But, given the Metro DC penchant to have repeatedly elected cocaine user Marion Berry as its village idiot — oops, I meant "mayor" — for so many years, it seems that common sense is as rare in DC as a legal handgun was during Mr. Berry's tenure. [1]
The anti-gunners of the Loony Left have painted themselves into a corner with their court case. By taking an appeal all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and basing an argument on the interpretation of a key tenet of the Constitution, the anti-gun crowd in DC Metro Government has opened to door for their own demise. How? According to the very Constitution that they are attempting to redefine, there is no such thing as a DC Metro Government. Under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 16), it is the duty of Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district..." The Founders of this country were highly intelligent men, skilled in linguistics. The fact that they used the terms "exclusive," "in all cases" and "whatsoever" all in the same clause showed that there was no ambiguity in their emphasis of who was in charge of the District of Columbia. Under the Constitution, there is no such thing as a DC Metro Government. Therefore, there can be no such thing as a "mayor" to bring such a lawsuit, and no such thing as a "DC gun ban."
Rest at Link.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Joe Steel
