Supreme Court on Gun Control: My Two Cents
I wrote an e-mail to my Constitutional Law professor about my thoughts on the recent Supreme Court decision on a DC gun control law. I thought that y'all might be interested in reading my two cents. Here's the body of the e-mail, cut and pasted.
I read over the recent District
of Columbia v. Heller decision and am very interested to hear your
thoughts on the case. Personally, as you are well aware, I am a very
liberal Democrat. However, upon my first review of the decision, I
find that, in this case, I agree with the conservative majority!
(Yes, pigs wearing ice-skates are, in fact, flying around in a
frozen-over hell.)
In addition to agreeing with the majority's articulated logic, I think
that regulating an individual's ability to own a gun for personal
protection could create a very slippery slope. I am extremely wary of
unilateral government control and, as such, believe strongly in the
second amendment as a means of enabling the people to, if they must,
use force to protect their civil liberties/freedom from oppression.
If guns were only legal for use in a militia, regulation would be near
impossible. Would militias have to register with the government?
Would one have to prove that he or she is a member of such an
"approved" or "registered" militia in order to qualify for gun
ownership? If so, the politicians in power would have the ability to
limit gun ownership to those who support the government. As the
purpose of one's right to own a gun, in my view, is to protect oneself
from the government, this regulation would result in an inherently
counter intuitive "house that Jack built."
For example, let's assume that the government has overstepped its'
bounds to such a degree that force has become necessary to protect our
constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. If, in this case, the only
individuals who possessed guns (assuming, as we must, that no one
possessed a gun illegally) were those who belonged to *governmentally
approved* militias. Then, only individuals who agreed with the
government's actions would have guns. Or, if an approved militia
articulated opposition to the government's unconstitutional action(s),
the government would have the legal right to revoke that group's
identification as a "militia" and, with it, its' members' right to own
a gun. In either case, the end result is that the only individuals
(or groups) allowed to own guns would be those that the government
approves. If the purpose of owning a gun is to protect the people
from the government, a regulation that could allow for this would be
inherently counter intuitive.
Anyway, that's my two cents--I'd love to hear your opinion!
I read over the recent District
of Columbia v. Heller decision and am very interested to hear your
thoughts on the case. Personally, as you are well aware, I am a very
liberal Democrat. However, upon my first review of the decision, I
find that, in this case, I agree with the conservative majority!
(Yes, pigs wearing ice-skates are, in fact, flying around in a
frozen-over hell.)
In addition to agreeing with the majority's articulated logic, I think
that regulating an individual's ability to own a gun for personal
protection could create a very slippery slope. I am extremely wary of
unilateral government control and, as such, believe strongly in the
second amendment as a means of enabling the people to, if they must,
use force to protect their civil liberties/freedom from oppression.
If guns were only legal for use in a militia, regulation would be near
impossible. Would militias have to register with the government?
Would one have to prove that he or she is a member of such an
"approved" or "registered" militia in order to qualify for gun
ownership? If so, the politicians in power would have the ability to
limit gun ownership to those who support the government. As the
purpose of one's right to own a gun, in my view, is to protect oneself
from the government, this regulation would result in an inherently
counter intuitive "house that Jack built."
For example, let's assume that the government has overstepped its'
bounds to such a degree that force has become necessary to protect our
constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. If, in this case, the only
individuals who possessed guns (assuming, as we must, that no one
possessed a gun illegally) were those who belonged to *governmentally
approved* militias. Then, only individuals who agreed with the
government's actions would have guns. Or, if an approved militia
articulated opposition to the government's unconstitutional action(s),
the government would have the legal right to revoke that group's
identification as a "militia" and, with it, its' members' right to own
a gun. In either case, the end result is that the only individuals
(or groups) allowed to own guns would be those that the government
approves. If the purpose of owning a gun is to protect the people
from the government, a regulation that could allow for this would be
inherently counter intuitive.
Anyway, that's my two cents--I'd love to hear your opinion!