2nd Ammend. Correctly Interpreted

A major victory was won today in the constant argument over the Second Ammendment. Refer to the box on your right to read what James Madison, et. al. stated specifically over 200 years ago.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

To read the decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, click here.

What is very encouraging is not simply that this panel held that we actually do have the rights that the Bill of Rights say we do, but the specific language that was used in the decision. Consider the following (emphasis added):

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

Folks, this is huge. This ruling will certainly be appealed, but think about what these judges are saying when they talk about "depredations of a tyrannical government." Jim Quinn put it best when he said, "Read: Kelo vs. New London, CT." It's only a matter of time until a government representative is shot dead while attempting to seize someone's private property for "public benefit" or "public betterment."

It remains to be seen how the full court will rule on appeal. XEKE.com will not be surprised if this is overturned, but the point remains that significant language was used that will prove very damaging to gun-control advocates.

Stay tuned.