BlogWonks

The lamestream media told you:

For the first time in history, the Supreme Court is addressing the meaning of the confusing, antiquated, poorly written Second Amendment. Widely understood to protect a right of the states to arm a militia, the Court may find a “newly recognized right” (NY Times) for individuals to keep and bear arms. The District of Columbia, which bans deadly handguns, says this is a reasonable restriction based on crime statistics, rifles are better suited to home self defense than handguns, guns can be unlocked and re-loaded by an old lawyer in the dark in just three seconds, and handguns are more dangerous than machine guns. A decision is expected in June.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Hey, I didn’t make that up, it’s what appeared on TV, in The New York Times, USA Today, and what the city’s attorney said in open court. The part about a decision in June is accurate.

The D.C. v. Heller case was the 96th gun case to reach the High Court, 36 of which name or quote from the Second Amendment. The rest deal with gun ownership, possession and use. This is clearly documented in Supreme Court Gun Cases, which reproduces all the cases, including the nearly forgotten 14 self-defense shootout cases that read like adventure novels. Heller is the 64th gun case to reach the Court since the confusing, antiquated, poorly written Miller case in 1939.

“The Supreme Court has consistently recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms for 200 years,” says co-author Alan Korwin, who spent six years with two co-authors researching the book.

The book:

http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

The Heller Case Wrap-up:

http://www.gunlaws.com/SCGC-Heller4-Wrapup.htm

The Photo Galleries:

http://www.gunlaws.com/SCGC-HellerPhotos1.htm