Judge upholds new DC gun control laws – Washington Times reports that Federal judge has upheld DC’s post Heller attempt to reregulate guns. This judge thinks the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is limited to Bearing a weapon inside your house for self-protection. Odd, I don’t see that anywhere in the language. So we’re back to the appeals court.
Odd thing – since the Heller decision, murders in DC are down 25%…
I wonder what the judge thinks “to bear” means. Maybe it’s carrying a weapon from the kitchen to the living room?
But only after you remove it from your gun safe, and disable the trigger lock while the home invader is slitting your throat…
Isn’t there a clause in the 7th Amendment (maybe the 6th, I don’t quite remember) that prohibits judges from overturning (or even revisiting) previous rulings just because they don’t agree with the previous decision?
Every time there is a hearing for a Supreme Court judge comes up, they revisit “Stare decisis” (that which has already been decided)… that binds a court to honor the rulings of a superior court and not reopen the case…. this is usually in the case of discussing Roe v Wade and making sure that the candidate won’t vote to overturn a prior decision. However, stare decisis applies to not overturning a higher level court – not so much to the same court changing its mind or revising a prior ruling’s scope. I am not a lawyer.