Public Safety Signals

Jack Says:

It was quite interesting as I began employment years ago in Federal Probation and Parole (in the District of Columbia) that citizens were not allowed to possess firearms. Apparently, it was a ban instituted during a period when the District was in the midst of a violent and dangerous, drug epidemic. It will be quite interesting to see what the United States Supreme Court decides and how it will ultimately affect Public Safety in the DC Metropolitan area.

March 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Joseph Pascarella Says:

Jack,

That is a great point. Often firearms control laws are based on a public sentiment at a particularly moment in history.

Joe

April 13th, 2008 at 4:55 am

Mark Rubin Says:

The 2nd Amendment may be the most controversial in the Constitution. Individuals and PACs emphasize the words they deem most relevant…either “A well regulated militia…” or “the right of the people to…”. However, as in most cases, the interpretation of the Amendment by the Court does not necessarily reflect the framer’s INTENT, but the politics of the modern day. As I live and work in a state with a concealed carry permit statute, I tend to view the Amendment from an officer-safety perspective. I prefer to be the only one on the scene with a firearm; if this is the case, I would not have need to possibly use it. However, over the past several years (since the inception of the law), I have observed officers change their patrol tactics in response to the increased possibility of encountering an armed person, even on something as routine as a traffic stop; unsnapped holsters on approach, unholstered on a house door approach, etc. While the Bill of Rights is intended to protect the people from government abuses, we must consider the changes in our culture since 1789. One issue will remain constant regardless of the Court’s decision…the two factions will continue to argue over which phrase contained in the Amendment did the framer’s INTEND to emphasize.

M. R. Rubin

May 13th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Jen Zammetti Says:

If you are interested in more specific detail about this case, check here: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller
You have access to just about everything on this page.

May 23rd, 2008 at 9:47 am

Ken Fisher Says:

This is very simple, the Preamble begins, “We the people”. Not “We the militia” or “We the government”. Therefore, the meaning of THE PEOPLE means ALL Americans have the right to bear arms and it SHALL not be infringed. There is no room for “interpreting” this. There is no room for personal opinions on this. There is NO room for changing this. I have been sworn to protect and defend the Constitution on many occasions and I have done so. I will uphold my defense of this until the day I die.

June 21st, 2008 at 8:27 am