Meb452m's Blog

D.C.'s gun-ban, banned. The recent Supreme Court ruling threw out the gun control law fosteres by those in Washington D.C.  It is a victory and once again the ordinary law-abiding man or woman can legally protect themselves as guarenteed by the Second Amendment in the Constitution, right ? That's right, but did the justices did a little two-step shuffel as well ? In that ruling, they struck down D.C.'s ban and then stated that the Second Amendment Right to bear arms is not ABSOLUTE. I fully understand what that word means , it means your rights, as a law-abiding citizen, by this ruling are conditional.  It is my belief  this wording opens the door and allows further litigation and dissent. , Suppossedly we have a system of checks and balances, has anything been " checked " ? Has  " balance " been restored ?  Does this ruling state " conditions " ?  Does this ruling state who has the specific authority to set  " conditions " and under what circumstances ?

I understand the need for " martial law " , that authority, and those conditions. I understand the "need " to deny convicted felons the right to bear arms. I understand the " need " to deny those that are mentally ill the right of possession.

But what about those that abide by the law ? Will this word " absolute " , it 's use in this case, and some unfinished bussiness open the door and leave MORE VICTIMS ?

Your thoughts, your comments, do you care ?