"Send lawyers, guns, and money...
the sh*t has hit the fan..." - Warren Zevon
Listening to the news this morning, I realized it was all about lawyers, guns, and money at the US Supreme Court today. Allow me to explain...
The Court hears oral arguments today on a case called District of Columbia v. Heller. The case centers around the constitutionality of DC's law which bans the posession of handguns by all except current and retired law enforcement officials. The Court has decided the key question in Heller is this: "Whether the [DC handgun ban], violate[s] the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"
Interestingly, the Supreme has only addressed the 2nd Amendment question one other time, in United States v. Miller in 1939. That case, however, did not decide whether the right to bear arms is a right granted to an individual citizen or to a group (a "well-organized militia", as the amendment states).
This case could affect handgun bans in other cities like Chicago. It could also have a far-reaching impact on legislation designed to control and regulate the use of guns--assault weapons bans, laws which prevent felons or the mentally disabled from owning firearms, etc.
I'll come right out and say that I am a gun control advocate--that those who use guns should register them, and should be subjected to reasonable limits on their posession and use. I've heard all the arguments in favor of unrestricted gun acess, and I don't buy any of them. There are plenty of statistics both for and against unrestricted gun ownership, but I'm betting those stats do nothing to change the argument one way or the other. They just help you dig yourself into an even more firmly entrenched position.
Either way this plays out, I expect this case will affect us for a long time to come. As news comes out on the case, I'll post updates and opinions.
More later...
3 Comments:
I'm also for gun control, big time.
I lost a very dear friend in high school because of a 12 year old who has access to his father's gun. he simply wanted a CD back from my friend, came out with his dad's gun, pointed it in my friend's face, who smacked it away and the gun went off and shot my friend in the face. It was a sad and useless tragedy, and completely preventable. So you'll never see me rallying for anything other than the strictest gun laws. I am not against people owning guns, but I am for them being very responsible with them.
There's my 2 cents. :)
--snow
I listened to a lot of it on C-SPAN today while going from appointment to appointment. Let's put it this way. I am a strong advocate of the Constitution and the bill of rights. Also let it be said that there is no such thing as absolute rights. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, you can't own a nuclear arm, etc. There are limits, usually in place for the common good over the individuals rights. And this is the way it should be. I will hold off any more opinions on this subject for now....but it is very fascinating!
Snow, I'm so sorry to hear--what a horrible thing to happen to your friend and to his family. I'm like you...owning them is OK, but you must be responsible. Interestingly enough the early read on the oral arguments is that the Supreme Court seems to lean toward declaring gun ownership an individual right, but will also acknowledge a government's right and need to regulate ownership. So, we're right back where we are now...
Daniel I agree with you--even if the Constitution said "Hey everyone can have a gun in their home, or as many as they want", that doesn't imply an 'absolute right', as you call it. I'm an armchair lawyer, but watching this whole thing play out is pretty darned interesting...
Post a Comment