DC Handgun Ban Overturned

[jsteele]

The Supreme Court has just ruled that the 2nd Amendment conveys an individual right to keep firearms. Therefore, they judged DC handgun ban and prohibition on keeping a loaded weapon in the home unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

Ugh. So I will have to start asking about guns in the house before playdates. What's the best way to brocah the topic without being offensive?

[Anonymous]

So if I have a right to bear firearms, why can't I keep a tank in my garage? Why can't I store bombs at my house? Why can't I keep a bazooka at home or a grenade? Why are handguns somehow covered by the Constitution and these things aren't? What is the distinction that makes a handgun -- which didn't exist in its current form when the Constitution was written -- somehow special?

Or can we expect the anti-gun control people to go after restrictions on these other items next?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:So if I have a right to bear firearms, why can't I keep a tank in my garage? Why can't I store bombs at my house? Why can't I keep a bazooka at home or a grenade? Why are handguns somehow covered by the Constitution and these things aren't? What is the distinction that makes a handgun -- which didn't exist in its current form when the Constitution was written -- somehow special?

Or can we expect the anti-gun control people to go after restrictions on these other items next?

The decision is contradictory, but frankly I don't think there was an alternative to a contradictory statement.

Question 1 is whether the right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals or militias. Regardless of my personal beliefs, I can't imagine the Court suggesting there was no individual right and I can't imagine what would happen if they did.

Question 2 is about limitations. Contrary to the first question, this one seems pretty cut and dry. The right will not be infringed.

Just as it seems unrealistic to expect the Court to agree that there is no individual right to a weapon, it is equally unlikely that they would agree that there should be no limitations, despite explicit language saying exactly that. So, the "strict constructionists" simply decided to ignore what the amendment clearly says. But, I don't know what else they could have done.

They try to cover themselves by saying things like the amendment only applies to the type of weapons at the time of the Constitution's writing, which ignores that cannons were widely available, and also says that it applies only to weapons that were not made specifically for the military -- which ignores the overlap of military and civilian weapons both then and now.

The most interesting part of the decision to my mind is the verbiage used to explain that the amendment has nothing to do with using guns to confront the government. I've been told for years by pro-gun people that the amendment was specifically to allow individuals to protect themselves from the government. So, it will be interesting to see how the pro-gun crowd reacts. The vast majority will never need exercise the right to own a gun in DC, but they may be discouraged to find out their plans to defend themselves against the big mean liberals in DC who are going to make them gay marry and convert to Islam are now unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. So I will have to start asking about guns in the house before playdates. What's the best way to brocah the topic without being offensive?

Most people won't tell you if there are - so it just makes you look stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. So I will have to start asking about guns in the house before playdates. What's the best way to brocah the topic without being offensive?

Most people won't tell you if there are - so it just makes you look stupid.

Not to mention you are a little naive if you think people didn't have firearms in the house during the ban. The ban only covered handguns, not rifles.

[Anonymous]

On the play date question, I always tried to invite my daughter's playmates to our house first, and would make a point of mentioning that we do not have guns, do not smoke, and there are no older children or other adults in the house besides our au pair, explaining that "since this is the first time your child is coming over, I thought you'd appreciate knowing".... the typical response was to reciprocate with the same information about their own house even though we weren't talking about a play date at their house yet. But I would not hesitate to ask -- I would just be very matter of fact about it, not intense.

[Anonymous]

There are two issues that the second amendment raises. The first is whether the reference to militias means that the right to bear arms is collective right to set up peace-keeping militias or an individual right. The Court has now made its interpretation that it is an individual right.

The second question is the meaning of "infringe". The Court has made it clear that DC's outright ban on the ownership of handguns is an infringement, but they clearly said that all sorts of other limitations are not. It seems like they are redefining the word, but that is within their power.

I think the dissenting opinion that it is a collective right is a lot more consistent, but now it is decided. However, the decision came close to Bush v Gore in declaring that it is not a precedent for anything else. They explicitly left the door open for all sorts of gun control laws short of total bans on handguns.

Aside from the questionable claim that he always believed it was an individual right, the above is basically what Obama said. McCain's stand seems to be that if it has the potential to obscure the issues that the next president will actually have to deal with, then it's a great campaign issue. Note: In fairness to McCain, Obama has also tried to promote side issues into campaign battles.