Interesting, But Without Much Practical Meaning
That's what the eventual result of the Supreme Court's initial resolution of the meaning of the Second Amendment will be. Interesting from a legal scholarship point of view; without practical result across the country.
Why you say?
Oral argument is being held tomorrow on whether the District of Columbia's very strict gun law is constitutional. Put too starkly, does the Second Amendment protect an individual's unfetter right to keep and bear arms of any type; or, on the other side of the fence, is the right to bear arms connected to the need to have a militia, along the lines of today's National Guard?
The obvious answers are no and to some extent. No one argues that the Second Amendment allows me to build and arm a nuclear weapon. I can't drive an armed tank down the street. Currently, I can't have a fully automatic rifle.
But I have all of those rights when they are connected to defense of the country or a state.
The question becomes where the line will be drawn by the Court. It will likely split several babies and create constitutional litigation for years to come. In the interim, 44 states have language in their constitutions protecting the right of individual gun ownership. Whatever the Court decides, it won't invalidate those provisions.
Charlton Heston, James Brady and their respective supporters will have plenty to argue about in the years to come.
8 comments:
From this post I'm guessing that the you were largely spared from the Atlanta tornadoes?
I won't wade into the merits of the issue much except to say that I don't think that the National Guard interpretation can really hold water, especially in the current world where components of the National Guard have been in constant Federal service since Bosnia....
And there's this cautionary warning posted on one of the police blogs I read: "Remember: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
In Canada most of us don't understand an American's right to bear arms. I get that you have that right, I just don't know WHY you'd choose that...doesn't violence breed more violence?
This is a heavy topic to get into, and I certainly don't want opinion to offend. (especially since I am clearly biased and looking at this from a canadian perspective only)
If you want to, I'd love to hear your take on this...
Michelle, do a word search on the blog for "second amendment." You will find that I don't have much use for the legal arguments, though I make them. I've done a bunch of posts that make your point.
Dave - I've read some older posts of yours, and you're right, I see where you stand. I also read some of the commentators who don't agree with you.
Consolation or not, I think you are 100% on the right track.
Dave - today's National Guard has little to nothing to do with the original intent of an armed militia. In fact, the original intent of the armed militia would be deemed treason today, just as it was deemed an act of treason to declare independence in 1776.
I'm not a gun nut, on either side. I abhor violence, but I abhor tyranny as well.
Most of the rhetoric that I have heard on the 2nd amendment doesn't seem to me that any of them are planning a revolution. But our founding fathers wanted to reserve our rights to do so, should we deem it necessary.
The thoughts that I heard, just after arguments, were that the Court would most likely write a decision that maintained states rights. It will be interesting to see how they actually decide. I know that there are several areas watching the decision closely.
Did you read The Appeal?
Curmudgeon and Pos,
I probably should have used a broader example than National Guard - law enforcement and national security organizations.
Exception,
I've not heard of The Appeal. I'll check it out.
Since when is a private citizen a militia?
Post a Comment