Bring it on: Parker v. District of Columbia

[Monadnock]

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-16-2007/0004626347&EDATE

"This case is enormously important, not only to the Parker plaintiffs
and other D.C. residents, but to persons nationwide who care about the
Constitution and the right to bear arms," said plaintiff's co-counsel and
Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy.

Parker was brought by six Washington, D.C. residents who wish to have
guns in their homes for self protection. District laws, however, impose a
total ban on the possession of functional firearms within the home.
(Residents may register shotguns and rifles, but they must be kept unloaded
and either disassembled or trigger-locked-and there is no exception for
self-defense.)

"As a practical matter, gun laws like those in the District of Columbia
are abysmal failures wherever they are in place, in the United States as
well as abroad," said Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the
Cato Institute. "They disarm law-abiding citizens while criminals ignore
them with impunity. It is thus no accident that Washington is often called
the murder capitol of the nation."
Concludes Pilon: "With Mayor Fenty's decision today, the Supreme Court
will have an opportunity at last to decide whether the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, or instead protects
only the right of members of the militia to keep and bear arms, as
gun-control advocates argue."
While the Supreme Court only accepts a small percentage of the appeals
it receives each year, leading court-watchers consider the Parker case a
strong candidate for Supreme Court review.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Fingers crossed but not holding out much hope.

 

[CanuckMA]

I'd agree that there is not much hope as the law does not restrict ownership, it only governs storage. The Second Amendment talks about the right to bear arms, but is silent on the right to store them loaded.

 

[Monadnock]

Some more commentary:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/07/18/parker-v-dc-if-i-could-speak-to-the-supreme-court/

In arguing that weapons applies only to militias, the District fails to understand that Militia as defined by United States Code applies to civilians as much as it does military. Civilians were the first Militia. See U.S. Code Title 10 herewhere we still are Militia.

It is also important to note they did not mean National Guard in those days: National Guard was not conceived and organized for another 130 years.

But that’s only the beginning.