the art and challenge of figuring things out
15 hours ago
March 26, 2008
The Right to Bear Arms or the Right to Arm Bears?
A NYT article on the proposal to the court. From the above excerpts I conclude the following. My prediction? The court will hear the case and the law will be struck down with a split decision. My fear? That in the process they categorize guns (see speech categories created in R.A.V v St. Paul) and start a wave a "fuzzy" gun legislation that becomes increasingly complicated and difficult to act on/ within.
A NYT article on the acceptance of the case.
The Supreme Court is reviewing the Second Amendment; a couple of things are interesting to me about the case.
First, that it has similar origins to the Scopes trial. The ACLU had issued a statement to defend anyone charged under Butler's Act and so a small group of men in TN asked John Scopes, the high school football coach who was substituting a science class to teach Evolution. In otherwords, a group with money created a case and brought it forward to test the Constiutionality of a legislative act. This is a great example of citizens taking the law into their own hands in protest of it. In the gun case, however, the CATO Institute gave permission for a CATO fellow to fund and organize a challenge to D.C.'s strict handgun and missile weapon legislation. (And who says academics don't live or act in the "real" world... For this I call on you all to go and hug an academic today.)
Secondly, I am confused as to how a person can only hold "abstract" objections to a law. If I have a gun, and you say that I can't, and that upsets me then I would call the gun that you are "prying out of my cold dead fingers" (Yeah for Charlton Heston shout outs, lol) a pretty "concrete" objection to the law. I ask this question in earnest... I would like readers to this blog who are versed in the law to describe to me what an "abstract" objection is.
Below are the three contentions of D.C.'s Attorney General with the appeals court's decision (as retrieved from the first NYT article above):
"First, it says, the Second Amendment’s text and history, properly understood, show that the amendment grants a right that “may be exercised only in connection with service in a state-regulated militia.”"
"Second, the brief observes that the amendment was drafted as a limitation on the authority of the federal government, not of the states, and that even if the District of Columbia is considered the equivalent of a state, “legislation limited to the District can pose no threat to the interests the Second Amendment was enacted to protect.”"
"Finally, the District of Columbia argues that even if gun ownership is an individual right, the handgun ban is amply justified as a “reasonable regulation” by considerations of public safety and health, as well as by the fact that the law permits ownership of other weapons."
"The appeals court left the door open to “reasonable regulations,” like prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, or weapons in particular locations, or the ownership of guns by felons. But a flat ban on a type of weapon cannot be considered reasonable, the court said."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
As many legal gun owners say, "no laws are going to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. Only out of my hands." Sadly, it is true. Gun violence is up, accidental discharges are up. Yet the gun cannot be blamed. Merely the ownership of a gun is not the problem. I don't know, but a good guess, is that there were a higher percentage of guns in American's hands 60 years ago than there are now. After WWII many servicemen brought home rifles and handguns. Yet somehow these guns weren't used in campus killings. Not like today. Why? Drugs? Video games? Hollywood? An urban culture? I really don't know.
Basically the problem with gun violence isn't the legal owners. Many legal gun owners wouldn't even jaywalk. The people who have the guns illegally don't care what the laws are. The will never care.
I am a gun owner and I always will be. I am also a former police officer who has witnessed more than my fair share of gun violence. None of the gun crimes that I ever investigated were there legal gun owners involved. (Other than suicides and let's face it, if it weren't a gun they'd find another way.) Maybe I am biased and my views are skewed because of my experiences. I want a gun in my house to protect my family and not for any other reason. The government shouldn't be able to take away my ability to protect my family and at the same time give criminals carte blanche to enter homes or commit other serious crimes without the danger of homeowners with guns.
In short, increased laws aren't going to curb violence at all. In fact one could argue that there might be an increase.
I apologize for the rambling nature. American Idol is on.
I understand that you and 2ndamend love your guns, but stuff like this makes me nuts:
http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-032308-sjf-gunonplane.1c4cabd1.html
Here is an interesting blog post about it:
http://peternbiddle.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/trust-isnt-transitive-or-someone-fired-a-gun-in-an-airplane-cockpit-and-it-was-probably-the-pilot/
(from Boing Boing)
2ndamend, cheers to finding a fellow gun nut... I don't know if I'd say that many legal gun owners wouldn't even jaywalk, but I do agree that many LEGAL gun owners aren't the problem. Unfortunately I also recognize the system's attempts at controlling all guns for the inability of the system to manage illegal gun ownership, and such blanket legislation worries me. Thank you for you comment and I look forward to hearing more from you.
Jen M., Thank you also for you comment, and I understand your frustration with firearm violence. I really enjoyed the trust article and I agree with it completely. I don't trust everyone with a firearm, but I still find the need to protect their right to have one should someone not trust me to own mine. I have found that many times people can see the point of view of gun nuts by spending an afternoon at the range with them. To stand in their shoes. So consider this an open invitation on my part... cheers, and thank you for your comment.
I think the Pink Pistols would be very supportive of arming bears.
http://www.pinkpistols.org/
And, while we're on this topic, WTF to this:
"Pentagon: Inventory ordered of all U.S. nukes
Defense Secretary Robert Gates orders accounting of all weapons.
U.S. mistakenly shipped four nuclear warhead fuses to Taiwan in 2006.
Gates' order: All nukes and nuke materials to be counted by serial number
An inquiry is expected regarding the Taiwan shipment, Pentagon says."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/27/pentagon.nuclear.review/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
umm? you don't know where your the nuclear weapons are? dudes, this seems kinda basic. YOU MUST KNOW WHERE THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE AT ALL TIMES. Yes, you must count them. No, you cannot ship them to Taiwan or any other maybe independent nation. Come on! We count on you guys to handle this stuff.
It looks like somebody needs to re-take Nuclear Weapons Handling 101.
I can just see it now. "Yea, I just need a signature here." "How many times do I have to tell you UPS guys, I didn't order any flippin' ICBM's this week!" INCREDIBLE.
kakelly- What I meant was that the legal gun owners are the law-biding citizens, in general. I definitely jaywalk...lol.
Jen- Regarding the pilots accidental or premature discharge... I strongly feel that this comes back to proper gun safety. Which the NRA (love'em or hate'em) does a great job of promoting. I carried a gun for years on and off duty as do thousands of cops and soldiers without accidents. Becoming/being careless with a gun is as stupid as drinking and driving. The blog you pointed me to says it perfectly. Guns don't accidentally go off. People accidentally PULL THE TRIGGER. Pilots should stick to flying and let the air marshals handle the weapons... That makes me insane, too.
it looks like those missing nuclear warhead fuses that went to Taiwan were from the 1960s:
http://nfttu.blogspot.com/2008/03/too-much-clutter-in-americas-nuclear.html
whew.
Charlton Heston is my President!!! LOL (I think I know what that means)
Great comments from all so far, jen m you are right about not everyone should. I teach for a major state LE agency and not all of them need to carry. The ablity to shoot well or safely is a VERY small part of carrying a weapon. I carry a gun everyday and work in gun violent world all the time but the mental side is so important. The 2nd amendment, is about personal ownership. I do not have problems with laws and rules as long as they are enforced equally and have some reason of being. The laws of DC, New York, New Jersey, Cook Co. (IL) are laws to restrict safe ownership and to me is a first step to governmental control. A gun is a machine that can only do what the owner makes it do. A gun is just like my computer it is no better than the operator.
Illegal gun use laws are the "gun laws" we more of. Truly enforce the laws we have now of using a gun in a crime and spend real time in prison. Gun laws ONLY effect the law abiding person. The people I deal with could care less if we have one gun law or a million laws. Gun laws DO NOT effect crime in any way (my opinion).
Ok, kakelly my blood pressure is high enough for today. Thanks jen m and 2ndamend I really enjoied the comments.
Post a Comment