What do you think – was the Supreme Court right to uphold U.S. citizens’ right to carry handguns, even in major cities? I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but as a New York City resident I’d prefer not to see handguns in an urban environment. David G. Savage reports for the Los Angeles Times:
The Supreme Court reversed a ruling upholding Chicago’s ban on handguns Monday and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe on the “right to keep and bear arms.”
The 5-4 decision appears to void the 1982 ordinance, one of the nation’s strictest, which barred city residents from having handguns for their own use, even at home.
The ruling has both local and national implications.
Two years ago, the high court ruled in a case from Washington, D.C., that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals to have a gun for self-defense. Since the District is a federal city and not a state, the court did not decide then whether the 2nd Amendment could be used to challenge other municipal ordinances or state laws.
In Monday’s decision, the court said the constitutional protection of the 2nd Amendment extends to city and state laws, not just federal measures.
Gun-rights advocates have been closely following the Chicago case. They said a victory for the 2nd Amendment would clear the way for constitutional challenges to restrictions on firearms to be heard in federal courts nationwide…
[continues in the Los Angeles Times]
Latest posts by majestic (see all)
- Creatives, designers and drugs: what are they on, and why? - May 16, 2016
- Why We Keep Dreaming of Little Green Men - May 15, 2016
- What Is The Value Of Conspiracy? - May 13, 2016