Gun Control

nytimes.com
October 5, 2011
The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us/appeals-court-allows-ban-on-assault-weapons.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=gun%20control&st=cse

Summary-
   An appeals court has recently decided in the District of Columbia that a ban on assault weapons does not violate the second amendment. Some of the laws, however, require further explanation to remain legal. There must be shown to be significant reason for the laws to exist, and the law must be substantially protective to the government if certain restrictions are to be kept. Restrictions that are in need of explanation include vision tests for gun owners and fingerprinting requirements.

Connection-
    The constitution relies on the Judicial branch of government to interpret whether its provisions are being abided by. Many laws have been struck down for being judged unconstitutional, and the district of Columbia is no exception. Simply because there are many important people in the area does not mean that restrictions meant to create safety are legal under the constitution. Freedoms protected under an amendment are protected everywhere in the United States.
    This connects to class because it relates to class discussions on the powers of each branch of the government, and how the branches can check the power of the others.

Personal Reaction-
    It seems that safety was likely a concern when creating these laws; but that the safety of government officials and not the people were the priority. If the safety of the majority was the concern, gun laws would probably not be as restrictive. Politicians are less likely to want a gun for self-protection than an average person, since those in the public eye are somewhat protected already.