Finally Some Thoughts on the The DC Gun Case

[countalpicola]

Originally published at The Mouse's Tale. You can comment here or there.

Well, it took me long enough, but I think I finally made up my mind about DC v. Heller. Despite everyone on both sides of the issue being absolutely convinced of the correctness of their positions, I actually found this case to be pretty hard. Much to my pleasant surprise,

Comments

[vorkon]

Is it wrong that when I first skimmed over this entry, I thought to myself, "Hey, why would a comic book company be suing someone over having a gun?"

To be fair, though, I just woke up, and am a complete idiot whenever I wake up. >.>

In similar news, this has reminded me that I couldn't help but think about you when I saw how the Supreme Court had ruled the death penalty totally badass.

Anyway, that being said, while I don't think it is fair (or even completely possible) to separate this issue from its historical context, I do agree with your interpretation of the amendment. It describes why the individual right is necessary, and then goes on to actually give the individual right in question. Essentially, they realized that the most effective way to ensure the goal (being able to form a militia) could be met was to not allow citizens to be disarmed. The individual right is explicitly given, but the intent was also described to allow some small degree of regulation over such potentially dangerous items, so long as the individual right is not taken away entirely. That's pretty much how I've always understood the amendment.

Basically, the second amendment is telling us to use some freaking common sense. Sadly, that tends to be something we're particularly bad at, hence all the confusion and disagreements ove its meaning.

[izuko]

Anyway, that being said, while I don't think it is fair (or even completely possible) to separate this issue from its historical context

While it's not fair, a textualist view (as opposed to a strict constructionalist) says that the Constitution is complete, unto itself, and required no outside source. It's not a bad view to take. However, it really does require one to not look too deeply into the words. If you insist on looking too deeply, you can spin the words to mean whatever you want it to mean. Hell, you can probably make Dick and Jane into some sort of kiddy porn story.

Thus a contextualist view also requires a willingness to hit the brakes before you go flying off the bridge.