Thursday, 03.20.08
Misfire
Photo by Flickr User Dubswede under a creative commons license
A Right to Keep and Bear Arms?
March 20, 2007
The Fall Into Guns
November 2000
Few Americans owned guns before the Civil War, Richard Slotkin writes. What happened?
Second Thoughts on the Second Amendment
March 1996
At issue is the District's extremely stringent gun control rules (which prevent anyone other than police officers from legally owning handguns), and more broadly the legal status of the Bill of Rights' most infamous subordinate clause. The Constitution is full of somewhat ambiguous provisions, but the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment — "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 infringed" — combined with a lack of legal precedents has left the basic issue of whether or not this protects any individual right at all uncertain.
The plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to gun ownership, and that DC's handgun ban violates that right. The justices seemed sympathetic to that argument, which is predictable given the court's rightward tilt and the fact that the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment has gained some steam in liberal legal circles in recent years. But if the court does choose to recognize an individual right, they'll be left with the thorny problem of defining its scope — “arms” presumably won't include rocket launchers or machine guns. In short, rather than settling the issue, striking down the DC ban will likely open the floor to a rash of new gun-related litigation as plaintiffs seek to challenge a wide set of less-restrictive gun regulations around the country.
Finally getting its due?Sanford Levinson on the most marginalized amendment. |
Where the justices fallSCOTUSBLOG writes that during oral arguments Justice Kennedy "emerged as a fervent defender of the right of domestic self-defense." |
Calling out the Roberts CourtDahlia Lithwick says oral arguments marked "the abandonment of every principle of strict construction, federalism and judicial modesty in which the Roberts Court ever purported to believe." |
Not so fast, Dahlia...David Bernstein demonstrates, contra Lithwick, that there was no federalism issue before the court. |
American cowardsAmericans are encouraged to revel in their individuality, Jeffrey Snyder writes, yet media and law enforcement advise us that, "when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist." |
(2)
Pardon the coffee-deprived typos.
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
I have always disagreed that there is uncertainty in the argument:
"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 infringed."
The first part of the argument cites the social justification for the right, while the ensuing part explicitly states the right granted to the individual. Just because the social justification has ceased to exist does not entail that the right to the individual has also ceased to be.
There is a difference between arguing: "Given A then B, and arguing: "If A then B." The the passage in question, is not a conditional argument.
At nay rate, I am not a gun owner. Moreover, given our propensity to violence, I am concerned with the abundance of weapons in our society. However, I would argue that an all-out handgun ban clearly contravenes the second amendment.
Posted by Luis A. del Valle | March 21, 2008 8:38 AM