The DC Gun Ban Pandora's Box
"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem [gun crime], including some measures regulating handguns."—Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in DC v. Heller
As I predicted, the Supreme Court decision in DC v Heller, the Washington handgun ban case, will be hailed by both sides of the gun control debate. The media in general and conservative talk radio in particular are claiming that this decision is a victory for gun rights activists and a vindication of the 2nd Amendment. While the Court should be applauded for finally putting the spurious individual right versus authority of the states to form militias debate to rest, its decision was by no means a defense of the Constitution. In fact, just as they did in the Kelo v New London case, the justices have amended the Constitution by stealth.
The 5th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property for anything other than "public use." In Kelo, the Court effectively changed the term "public use" to "public purpose," meaning that takings no longer needed to be used by the public directly as in roads, government buildings, etc., but simply needed to serve the public good, a much lower barrier to cross and one that gives politicians and bureaucrats much more arbitrary power. In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor even went so far as to say that the Court had eliminated the phrase "public use" completely, thus leaving Americans with no protection from arbitrary government seizure of their private property.
In DC v Heller, the Court added a word to the 2nd Amendment. The final four word of the Amendment are very important. They read, "shall not be infringed." How clear is that? Simply, the government shall not infringe upon any person's natural right to acquire and possess the tools necessary to defend themselves, their property, and their liberty. However, now even the most conservative justice on the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, agrees that's not what the Framers really meant.
According to the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment now reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be unreasonably infringed." This change is very troubling for the future of gun rights in America. The focus of the argument will now change from the right to bear arms, to what is reasonable. The term "reasonable" will be used as a club to beat gun rights activists into submission. After all, why won't you support this anti-gun legislation; you're being unreasonable. In addition, "unreasonable" will be used as a fulcrum to lever in more and more "reasonable" anti-gun laws.
There is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to eliminate or greatly restrict private ownership of firearms. Many Americans would never have stood for an outright ban on individual firearms ownership. Recognizing this, the anti-gun lobby has softened its rhetoric and pushed for more regulation instead. In the end, however, its goal remains the same: to take guns out of the hands of private individuals. This will now be done through even more licensing, permits, waiting periods, regulation of commerce, and high taxes. Thanks to the DC v Heller decision, the Supreme Court has given these efforts official sanction.
As I predicted, the Supreme Court decision in DC v Heller, the Washington handgun ban case, will be hailed by both sides of the gun control debate. The media in general and conservative talk radio in particular are claiming that this decision is a victory for gun rights activists and a vindication of the 2nd Amendment. While the Court should be applauded for finally putting the spurious individual right versus authority of the states to form militias debate to rest, its decision was by no means a defense of the Constitution. In fact, just as they did in the Kelo v New London case, the justices have amended the Constitution by stealth.
The 5th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property for anything other than "public use." In Kelo, the Court effectively changed the term "public use" to "public purpose," meaning that takings no longer needed to be used by the public directly as in roads, government buildings, etc., but simply needed to serve the public good, a much lower barrier to cross and one that gives politicians and bureaucrats much more arbitrary power. In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor even went so far as to say that the Court had eliminated the phrase "public use" completely, thus leaving Americans with no protection from arbitrary government seizure of their private property.
In DC v Heller, the Court added a word to the 2nd Amendment. The final four word of the Amendment are very important. They read, "shall not be infringed." How clear is that? Simply, the government shall not infringe upon any person's natural right to acquire and possess the tools necessary to defend themselves, their property, and their liberty. However, now even the most conservative justice on the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, agrees that's not what the Framers really meant.
According to the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment now reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be unreasonably infringed." This change is very troubling for the future of gun rights in America. The focus of the argument will now change from the right to bear arms, to what is reasonable. The term "reasonable" will be used as a club to beat gun rights activists into submission. After all, why won't you support this anti-gun legislation; you're being unreasonable. In addition, "unreasonable" will be used as a fulcrum to lever in more and more "reasonable" anti-gun laws.
There is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to eliminate or greatly restrict private ownership of firearms. Many Americans would never have stood for an outright ban on individual firearms ownership. Recognizing this, the anti-gun lobby has softened its rhetoric and pushed for more regulation instead. In the end, however, its goal remains the same: to take guns out of the hands of private individuals. This will now be done through even more licensing, permits, waiting periods, regulation of commerce, and high taxes. Thanks to the DC v Heller decision, the Supreme Court has given these efforts official sanction.
The high court's "interpretation" is that we may keep arms in our homes. Now, what about the next two words "and bear" arms? Suppose I wish to walk down the street with a holstered pistol?
Reply to this
Check out the story of Leda Smith. Her story shows just how damn important the individual right to bear arms is.
Reply to this
As a owner of several firearms, a longtime member of the SAS, a former soldier in the US Army, and a current holder of a license to carry a concealed weapon, I've always been and will continue to be appaled by the deliberate misinterpritation and rewording of our constitution by the Sandra Day O'Conner faction. She should realize that one day, hopefully not soon, the private citizens that she'd wish to disarm completly will be the backbone of our, and hers, defense. War WILL come to our land again, and American civilians will have to answer the call to arms. Military and local Law Enforcement cannot be everywhere at once. What will we do when the day comes to hit the street and protect our own, and we have not the tools to do it with? Throw kitchen knives? IT is the constitutional right of every American, of legal age, and not a convicted felon, to keep and bear arms. The amending of the constitution that our "Framers" set forth for all of us, in our best intrest, is 'unreasonable.' ~AE
Reply to this