[gallo]

It appears as if I am going to have to alter my position on the 2nd Amendment. Court watchers reported some sympathy for an individual right to bear arms granted by the 2nd Amendment.

My position has been that there is no absolute right granted to individuals by the 2nd Amendment. That right was granted to "the people" as a means to maintain a militia for times of emergency.

The question now is whether the SCOTUS will recognize an absolute right to bear arms, or allow limits to that right by state and local governments. It seems likely at this point that the absolute ban in Washington, D.C. will be overturned. It is not clear how far the Court will go in removing gun control legislation.

As I understand it, it is true that the ban on hand guns in Washington has not had an effect on crime. Neither has the legalization of concealed hand weapons in Texas. Crime with fire arms goes on, one way or the other.

In Texas, after the legalization of concealed weapons with license, the first case of the use of such a weapon was no billed by a grand jury. It was a case of a fender bender in Dallas. One large motorist felt wronged, jumped out of his car and ran back to the car of the perceived offender, who conveniently had rolled down his window to talk. The first motorist reached through the open window, grabbed the other motorist by the necktie and punched him in the face. That punch resulted in a broken jaw. For his efforts, the first motorist received a 9 mm. slug in the face that was immediately fatal.

Anyway, if the SCOTUS finds that Americans have an absolute right, even if subject to state and local limits, this is going to take years to sort out. If I am arrested carrying my legal hand gun in a bar, I might be able to appeal on the grounds that I have a right to carry it into a bar in spite of state law.