This will no doubt strike a chord with many readers.
In short, the issue at hand is a district wide ban in DC of handguns. Civil liberties groups as well as some expected organizations are claiming unconstitutionality.
Those claims are understandable to me. But, I do think that the law is constitutional.
Before I go into detail, I feel compelled to say I support gun ownership.
If we are to look the SA we must remember that it calls for good regulation. This is one example of good regulation.
Here is why. DC, as is well known, had turned into a cesspool of crime and nefarious activity, where guns–in addition to drugs–had led to the city’s demise. The ban was necessary for a city wide rejuvenation.
Believe it or not, I feel that Justice Scalia’s version of originalism would justify the belief here (and very few other places) that this is good regulation. Scalia would (or, should) argue that the writers of the constitution would expect the original definition of “well regulated” to protect citizens, when guns started to be used for violent methods and not for defense in the wild, or protection from a too powerful central government.
If this were a blawg, I would go into much more depth as I believe my definition somewhat simplistic. But at this juncture I will wait.