“Even if these marchers succeed in their ambitious plan to transform Congress and enact new gun laws, they still must contend with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a gun. It probably won’t come as a surprise to learn that Justice Stevens was one of the four dissenters in that 2008 decision.”

The article from which this is taken is a very important one because it points to the most sensible, perhaps the only viable path, to getting weapons of terror and mass murder out of people’s hands.

When I was in DC, I had a very good conversation with a man, Roger, whose views he himself would say to be considerably more conservative than my own.  In regard to the March I was about to attend—he too—we discussed the means available for taking action to get done what needed to be done.  We came to agree that legal action was the path because there had been a Supreme Court case that had been decided that undermined a previously enacted assault rifle ban.  It was District of Columbia v Heller.

Roger and I came to agreement through honest conversation.  It was a highlight of my trip.

With that decision standing, we agreed, there is no chance that a ban on assault weapons can exist legally.  Therefore, what must happen is that the law must be changed and, since it is, as the article explains, pretty much impossible to abolish the Second Amendment, the effort must focus on what is actually doable in the least amount of time to save innocent lives and that is to bring to court challenges to Heller.

Read this article.  It makes the kind of sense essential to making good sense decisions about the assault weapons issue.


By lafered

Retired professor of education concerned with thoughtfulness

Leave a Reply