Ruling reflects America's ambivalence on guns

From Discourse DB
Revision as of 15:45, June 27, 2008 by Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (New page: {{Item |author=USA Today editorial board |source=USA Today |date=June 27, 2008 |url= |quote="Fortunately, the 5-4 decision to str...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) USA Today editorial board
Source USA Today
Date June 27, 2008
Quotes-start.png "Fortunately, the 5-4 decision to strike down the District of Columbia's tough ban on handgun possession didn't go as far as gun-control advocates had feared or the gun lobby had hoped. The justices agreed that a right to individual ownership doesn't mean that anyone can own any weapon. That leaves in place reasonable restrictions or outright bans on firearms such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, and exotic weapons such as surface-to-air missiles." Quotes-end.png

Add or change this opinion item's references

This item argues for the position Supreme Court was correct in its ruling on the topic District of Columbia v. Heller.