Ohioan
Member
This is from the Lorain Morning Journal, near Cleveland, OH.
Link to originial OP-ED piece.
Then, on another page, they were bassically told to shove their opinion where the sun don't shine!
http://www.morningjournal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19059548&BRD=1699&PAG=461&dept_id=46368&rfi=6
Link to originial OP-ED piece.
Our View: Second Amendment issue likely to become major campaign theme
11/26/2007
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
If any issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional races could overshadow the Iraq war, health insurance or the nation's economic future, it is the one just triggered by the United States Supreme Court: handgun ownership.
The justices have agreed to consider an appeals court ruling that struck down the local Washington, D.C., government's total ban on handguns. Cities with tight handgun restrictions will be keeping a close eye on how the Supreme Court rules because that ruling will likely hit close to home.
The Supreme Court is likely to hear the arguments in March and is expected to rule in June, in the midst of election campaigns.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads: ''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.''
Gun rights advocates see the Second Amendment as ensuring the right of individuals to possess handguns at home for safety.
Gun control advocates see the Second Amendment as bestowing the collective right of states to have a militia for security.
Washington, D.C., banned handguns in an attempt to hold down violent crime. Citizens challenging the law contend it prevents them from having a handgun at home for self-defense.
In ruling against the Washington, D.C., handgun ban, Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman wrote, ''The Bill of Rights was almost entirely a declaration of individual rights, and the Second Amendment's inclusion there strongly indicates that it, too, was intended to protect personal liberty.''
The ruling was the first time a federal court ruled that the Second Amendment was violated by a gun law, according to an account in the Los Angeles Times. The piece noted that the last time the Supreme Court ruled on a Second Amendment issue, in 1939, it emphasized the collective rights stance; justices upheld the conviction of a man for taking a sawed-off shotgun across state lines, noting that such a weapon was not related to maintaining a state militia.
However the Supreme Court decides the Washington, D.C., case, the matter is sure to be hot-burning fuel for political fires in the presidential campaign. Few issues trigger such emotionally charged arguments on each side, and the gun lobby is fully loaded with money for waging an influence campaign.
We have little use for handguns, which the daily parade of headlines across the nation shows doing far more harm than good, especially in cities like Lorain and Cleveland and Washington, D.C. We hope the high court upholds the D.C. gun ban and reads the Second Amendment as plainly referring to the establishment of state militias.
We also hope the Second Amendment matter won't create such commotion in the 2008 political campaigns that other important issues fall by the wayside.
Then, on another page, they were bassically told to shove their opinion where the sun don't shine!
http://www.morningjournal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19059548&BRD=1699&PAG=461&dept_id=46368&rfi=6
