Those who believe in the civil right that the Second Amendment was created to protect were not surprised when the Supreme Court decided today to hear a case that challenges the District of Columbia's draconian gun laws, which are arguably the toughest in the nation.
The AP story on the decision correctly notes that the case "could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms' in nearly 70 years."
D.C. law only permits those people who had handguns when the gun-prohibition law was enacted 31 years ago to keep them, creating a privileged class of D.C. residents who, unlike the rest of us, have the ability to defend themselves from the thugs who terrorize large portions of the city. The blatantly unconstitutional law hasn't worked, and The Onion rightly mocked D.C.'s skyrocketing violent crime rate in a satirical news story in 2003, D.C. Once Again Murder Capital, Mayor Brags.
Yet, today's report from the Associated Press characterizes the Court's move as controversial: "The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections."
According to Wikipedia, 48 states allow some kind of "concealed carry" of firearms and 39 states have "shall issue" carrying laws. So where's the controversy? Even the Democratic Party recognizes gun control is a no-win issue.
Only in a liberal journalist's mind could the issue be "divisive."
