THE PLANK NOVEMBER 21, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Scott Lemieux and Jack Balkin have two early takes on the Supreme Court's decision to hear the challenge to the District of Columbia's gun ban. My lack of legal expertise notwithstanding, Lemieux seems right on:
1) the most plausible interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I think,
confers an individual right to bear arms, although this is certainly
not the only reasonable interpretation; 2) given this, D.C.'s draconian
ban is (for better or worse) clearly unconstitutional, but 3) more
reasonable gun control measures may be constitutional even if the right
to bear arms is considered an individual right.
Balkin's argument, on the other hand, isn't as persuasive. He makes the same assessment of the legal questions as Lemieux does, but then speculates that one effect of the Court striking down the gun ban will be to hand Democrats a campaign issue and energize gun-control supporters. He may be right that feeling aggrieved at the hands of the Court can be a powerful motivator for activists, but it's incredibly difficult to see any Democratic presidential candidate actually trying to make gun control an issue in the 2008 election, regardless of how the Court ends up deciding the case. The political downside is far too great, and I suspect that most Americans (if perhaps not most DC residents) would find the District's ban on handguns excessive, to say the least.
--Josh PatashnikÂ
2 comments
Since when is the right to bear arms the right to bear a particular type of arms? Is it legitimate to ban private citizens from owning RPGs or land mines? Of course. Then it's equally legitimate to ban individuals from owning handguns.
Why can't the government say, "Okay, you're free to exercise your right to bear arms within the following parameters: no machine guns, no explosives, and the weapon must have the following minimum length, X" thereby limiting arms-bearing to rifles and shotguns, both of which have a legitimate use--hunting--that handguns lack and are, in the case of shotguns, equally or more effective for personal defense and, in the case of rifles, are more effective for military combat, i.e. in the "maintenance of a well regulated militia."
- aeromonas
November 22, 2007 at 4:47am
My gracious, sanity has returned to the boards. aeromonas makes the points I would have made, only more concisely. Hand guns--as any cop will tell you--are lousy self-defense tools for civilians: wait until the perp is close enough to be clearly identified and within range range and he'll take the gun away from you; fire at long range and you'll miss him and/or kill your neighbor's kid. Shotguns, on the other hand, are fine household protection weapons.
Nobody needs an automatic or semiautomatic weapon to hunt. If you can't kill it with a bolt-action rifle you don't deserve to hunt. Nobody needs a .50 caliber rifle for target shooting at home; a .22 is fine.
Firearms are neat toys, I agree. You want to play with, or collect, anything more lethal than those above, fine. Just keep those toys either locked up in a shooting club or inoperable at home.
I'm fine with the well-regulated militia too. You want to play with bigger toys (or, not incidentally, help defend your family and neighbors) go JOIN a well-regulated militia.
The rest is paranoid nonsense. When the jackboot-wearing UN troops come marching in, with their body armor, air support, artillery, radar-directed anitmortar fire, lethal and nonlethal gases, armored vehicles, and monopoly on communications, will that pistol really help?
- AlanK
November 22, 2007 at 3:52pm