Will SCOTUS Give Everyone a Gun?
William McKenzie, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, writes:
The Supreme Court is supposed to decide this week or next on a controversial Second Amendment case that involves D.C.'s ability to regulate the possession of firearms. Should individuals have the unlimited right to possess firearms? If not, what restrictions would you favor on a person's right to possess guns?No, individuals should not have an unlimited right to possess firearms. But I'm afraid that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution gives them that right.
What restrictions would I favor? Strict limits on the types of guns that private citizens are allowed to own and strict registration of the guns that private citizens do own.
But what I favor is a moot point, given the Second Amendment. And amending the Constitution again to restrict the right to bear arms is both very difficult and very risky. Difficult because there is a significant voting bloc opposed to restrictions. Risky because other rights will come under scrutiny and I'm not sure there's a majority of Americans who are all that enamored of, say, free speech or a free press or the ban on government establishing religion. Better leave the Constitution alone.
I would like to see the government preserve the right the bear arms and beef up the part about "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Why not require all adults to be part of a militia, with regular training in the safe and skillful use of guns? Perhaps give citizens the choice of opting out of being in the militia if they pledge not to keep or bear arms. That way, individual liberty is maintained, while at the same time, society is ensured that the people who do exercise their right to bear arms are doing it for the reason cited by the Founders, the need for a well-regulated militia.
3 comments:
Warning, many wild digressions follow. Your thoughtful post kicked a few neurons loose in this tired old noggin.
1. One might argue, only half-facetiously, that CHL carriers constitute a de facto militia: vetted, licensed, and invisible.
2. Although the libertarian streak in me chafes a bit, I don't have a personal problem with the must-be-in-a-militia rider. Or maybe say that one must do national service first (military, red cross, peace corps, whatever). But perhaps not for the reason one might think.
National service usually expands one's horizons and passport. I suspect very few of the bumper-stickery "we support the troops" zealots have ever BEEN a troop. We worship (or deprecate) that which we do not understand, not to mentioned that saying that one supports the troops is not the same thing as supporting the troops.
3. The militia thing brings something else to mind. Perhaps when congress declares war (which they should have the guts to do, no more of this police action cop-out) maybe this should trigger a draft that starts with the draft-age progeny and grand-progeny (sons and daughters both) of congressfolk. Make it personal.
I appreciated the quality and reasonableness of your post and wanted to give you some echoes, as disjointed and digressive as they may be. Feel free to delete if it detracts from your blog. :-)
Thanks for the comments. I'm not gung ho for a militia. I'm just trying to work within the constraints of what the Founding Fathers left us in the Second Amendment.
The left wing uses the militia clause to dismiss the individual right to own guns. The right wing ignores the militia clause altogether. Maybe it's time to find a middle ground: recognize the individual right to own guns but also honor why the Founders put that right into the Constitution.
Guns would be less of a problem if there were some responsibilities (training for a militia) that went along with the right (to own a gun). The training requirements in the concealed handgun laws are a step in the right direction. Let's go farther. A lot of people who have no business owning a gun would decide not to in order to avoid the militia training requirement. That would be a good thing. And constitutional.
The Supreme Court ruling in the DC gun law case came down today. As expected, the Court struck down the DC law as unconstitutional.
The ruling reads like it should have been a 9-0 decision. The Constitution pretty clearly gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms. It would be kind of hard to rule any other way. But the Court found that all sorts of restrictions, regulations, limitations, etc., might just pass Constitutional muster.
Frankly, I am shocked that Scalia would allow any infringements, given the plain wording of the Second Amendment. Scalia might be torn between his love of guns and his love of suppressing civil rights in the name of anti-terrorism.
Post a Comment