A Well regulated (in 1800s that meant well armed)Militia (see above post on definition of militia as every law abiding adult capable of bearing arms), being necessary to the security of a free State (as in country), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The bold is the text of the amendment, the italic is my commentary on it. It seems pretty damn straight forward doesn’t it? I just have to ask the liberal left wingers what part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” do they not understand?

The US District court for DC has just overturned a number of provisions of the DC gun ban on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. DC has promised to appeal it to the Supreme Court. The real problem with gun ban laws is that before you can sue to get one overturned, you have to have standing. If you can’t show injury from the implementation of the statute, you can’t even get a day in court. Over half of the plaintiffs in the DC case were found to not have standing because they didn’t actually live in DC. It didn’t matter that they were subject to the laws on a daily basis by working there, they were found to not have standing because they didn’t reside in the district. One woman DID live in DC and the judges ruled that the DC requirement that she not be allowed to maintain a weapon in her home without it being unloaded and disassembled essentially deprived her of her right to a viable weapon should she be attacked at home. On those grounds, those portions of the law were overturned because they infringed on her right to own and BEAR arms. I think other provisions that required that all handguns in the District had to be registered there over 20 years ago may have also been struck down as effectively preventing law abiding citizens from owning firearms. The district even tried to claim immunity from the US Constitution because it isn’t a state. That argument flew like a lead balloon.

US Supreme Court, 1886