"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...
