There is a case before the Federal Appeals Court in Washington DC that bears watching by those of us who have bemoaned liberal groups and activist judges twisting and distorting the intent of the constitution.
Attorneys for the District of Columbia are arguing that the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, applies only to militias. They are trying to defend the city's ban on handguns.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Indeed, the right of Americans to own firearms has long been a tradition, an accepted right and a personal freedom.
If the courts decide that the right to bear arms refers exclusively to a well regulated militia, does the lack of need for a militia void the right to bear arms? There is something even more sinister at play here and it reveals itself in the statement by one of the plaintiffs' attorneys. "That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary. If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"
I can hear the murmuring from the depths of liberal hell welling up as I write. Is this another opportunity to subvert the intent of the Founding Fathers? While feigning love for the constitution, this, like freedom of religion, is a right the liberals love to hate.
If this case makes it to the Supreme Court and they are willing to hear it, it could be more significant than any abortion or death penalty case. If the government finally decides to remove the weapons of the law abiding citizens of our nation then the Liberty Bell can be used to toll the death knell of American freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment