Big news out of the nation’s capital district, “Gun ban bites dust,” should have OP banners worried. It “sets up a Supreme Court showdown over the scope of the 2nd Amendment”: does it give gun rights only to militia, or to citizens? “It was the first time a federal appeals court has voided a gun law on the basis of the 2nd Amendment,” per LA Times, quoting lawyers.

If the justices were to agree with the lower court, the ruling would not likely sweep aside the many laws that regulate guns and gun ownership. However, it could cast doubt on measures that forbid law-abiding residents from possessing a weapon.

The Supreme Court has not give comfort to gun-owners, focusing on the “militia” part of the 2nd amendment. But Friday’s ruling by the D.C. appeals court

may cause the [S.C.] justices to reconsider that conclusion. Breaking with precedent, the 2-1 decision said the government may not forbid residents from owning “functional firearms” for self-defense at home.

This is the issue, of course. People living in war zones may arm themselves for self-protection.

“Once we have determined ?#34; as we have done ?#34; that handguns are ‘arms’ referred to in the 2nd Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them,”

was the 2?#34;1 majority opinion, which allowed “reasonable regulations” on ownership and possession ?#34; registration and the like.

The dissenting judge

argued that the high court had made clear the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect a “well regulated militia,” not individuals who want guns for their own uses.

Thus David Savage in LA Times (and Chi Trib). The AP story by Brett Zongker, has it different, however:

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

With Mainstream Media disagreeing, whom are we to believe?

Join the discussion on social media!