The US Supreme Court may soon hear a case about the 2nd Amendment.
A Washington DC security guard is claiming that the city acted unconstitutionally when it denied him a handgun permit. The city claims that despite spending over a decade as the murder capitol of the country that its extremely tough firearms restrictions are necessary.
FOX coverage here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311276,00.html
The court hasn't heard a case on this issue since 1939, according to the article, and ruled then based on a technicality, not the hot question of what or who constitutes a militia.
My own take is quite simple - the citizens of the US, in the absence of locally organized militia (the National Guard does NOT count since they can be federalized without local approval), constitute a de facto militia and thus have the right to keep and bear arms. Remember, that "well regulated militia" is NECESSARY to the preservation of a free state. One way or another, we clearly need it. If the local governments do not organize such a militia, it is the duty of the citizens to do so, and the state has no right to take away their means of doing so effectively (i.e. limiting the right to bear arms).
To the inevitable challenge that "more guns means more murders" I will say right now: IMO a partially armed society is the most dangerous form, and it is far, far too late for the US to become an unarmed society. That leaves the status quo, and a fully armed society (which I'm not in favor of either, but which I have no constitutional basis to object to at the present time) as the only options.
Also, I'll throw this out there. In my time in EMS I saw a number of gunshot victims. Three stand out in my mind:
1. A drunk who grabbed a police officer's side arm during a fight and was promptly shot with her backup weapon. (DOA, and, forgive the dark humor, a really nifty X-ray.)
2. A child who was shot with her father's .22 by her younger brother - the father had left the firearm in a drawer and had dropped the magazine but not checked the chamber.
3. A, I believe the term is "suspect", who was the victim of a drive-by shooting.
IMO, #1, the guy got what was coming to him, and only disarming our police (anyone in favor of this, please speak up?) would have prevented it. #2 was a terrible accident, which would never have happened if the father had followed firearm rule #1: any firearm is loaded until proven otherwise. #3 was a criminal activity - I somehow doubt the shooter had a PA concealed carry permit. I know the victim didn't, and he was carrying as well.
So, ask yourself this question: what law would have prevented any of these three shootings? The .22 had been in the drawer for years - it seemed the father had actually forgotten about it. He's the only one who would conceivably turn in the offending weapon, and he's not likely to have done so even given a total recall on handguns simply because he'd forgotten it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I can't not comment. I don't have any particularly strong feelings towards gun control, but I have to point out a few flaws in your logic.
1. It says a WELL REGULATED militia, not a bunch of random people with guns.
2. your three examples are very specific, and I would say that you arguing that the people can bear arms would have had little, if any affect on the outcomes. The cop still would have shot the guy, the father still would have had the weapon (in fact more fathers might) and the illegal guys would still have their guns.
3. the whole idea of a right to keep and bear arms is a little interesting in and of itself...
I guess we'll see where it goes.
Your point #1 is well taken, but the various local governments provide no regulatory basis for a well-regulated milita, so *at the moment* we don't have that option.
The 2nd Ammendment also does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms to the milita, you'll note. It says the right SHALL NOT be abridged, GIVEN the need for a strong militia.
My examples are all those that I remember clearly from my own experiance - they aren't cherry-picked. I'm not arguing that we need more firearms, I'm saying any regulation passed now to remove firearms from the populace would have been useless in those cases (and in the lion's share of cases I know of, for that matter).
The whole idea of rights at all is a little interesting in and of itself. :-)
It all comes down, IMO, to the fact that, as it says in the Declaration of Independance, the people have the right to overthrow an oppresive government. Certain aspects of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, seem to have been designed to limit the odds that such a revolution would be necessary, while ensuring good odds of success in the event that it was necessary.
We will, as you say, see where it goes.
Post a Comment