Here, read this:
“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.”
It’s the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights.
OK. Now read this:
the activities protected by the Second Amendment “are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
Basically, the question at hand is whether the ‘right to bear arms’ is an individual one or group privilege. For decades the Supreme has held that it is a group right. That makes sense to me when you actually take the time to read the Second Amendment. (It’s not that long, is it?)
In Washington D.C.’s case, the Federal Appeals Court, however, decided that their feelings on the rights to bear arms trumped their ability to read the constitution and interpret it. Hey, I agree with them! I too, believe there ought to be a law protecting the right to individually bear arms. It’s just not what it says in the constitution says. In short, these were classic activist judges. They want a different law than what is on the books and instead of waiting for legislators to write one, they just change the interpretation of the ones we already have.
Isn’t that what ‘liberal’ judges are usually up to? The Surpreme Court now takes on the case. What do you think is going to happen?