Comments on: Second Amendment case reaches Court; cross-appeal coming

By: Chris Watson

Chris Watson — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:17:20 +0000

This case is *the* defining case for 2A. I would be shocked if the court decided to not hear it.

I take the position that 2A is the underpinning of the entire US Constitution; it is the means of last resort to overthrow an oppressor and without it as an individual right, we are left to the mercies of any government to take away any and all of our rights.

To some that may be extreme but I would argue that it was the clear intention of the Founding Fathers
to ensure our liberties as individuals. IMHO, this is consistent with the other amendments intentions.

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:57:12 +0000

Glad to be of service. All’s well that ends well.

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:08:45 +0000

Steve,

Your first statement suggested you think the level of scrutiny matters and your second suggests that it is irrelevant. While I agree with you that the level of scrutiny is irrelevant because of the nature of the right, that really isn’t what your first comment says. Thanks for the clarification.

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:26:51 +0000

to make it simple for you:

The court might believe that Amendment Two smiles on gun ownership, so if the government wants to restrict it, it has to not only show it has a good reason for doing so, but also that it chose a “minimally restrictive” method of achieving that reason. It “trammelled” the right to bear arms as little as it could and still achieve the goal.

Similarly, A14 frowns on racial classifications, so if the government wants to employ them it not only has to show that it has a good reason, but also that the method chosen was ‘narrowly tailored’ to achieve it. it “trammelled” the right to equal treatment re race as little as it could and still achieve the goal.

so “narrowly tailoring” un AA is akin to “less restrictive” here.

hope that helped. somehow i doubt it, though. ;)

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:25:53 +0000

We often see that language in affirmative action cases, and i think it will appear here as well.

Let me make this more simple. Do you think “gun-owners” is a suspect classification?

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:17:41 +0000

er, please read the rest of the post.

The rest of your post doesn’t explain why you think narrow-tailoring will be a part of this decision.

By: J_Griffith

J_Griffith — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:30:09 +0000

It puts handguns in a separate category of extremely dangerous weapons and subjects them to stricter regulation. This is similar to special categories for and stricter regulation of assault rifles, grenade launchers, bazookas, missiles and explosive devices.

Not so. You see under Federal law all of your parade of horribles are perfectly legal to own*. Yes, there are onerous hoops to jump through, registration by the Federal government, $200 taxes to pay (per item in the case of grenades and shells), Federal Explosive Licenses in some cases and so on. But, if you have the money and the time and really want to, you can own all of them.

Which is specifically what DC says you can’t do for a simple handgun. And that is why the ban cannot stand as a reasonable regulation.

*The one exception to this is fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. However, if those on the court who care for such things took a look at the legislative history of how that passed they wouldn’t be able to draw any conclusions from that that could be applied elsewhere.

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:36:15 +0000

er, please read the rest of the post. it’s a good habit to have, in general.

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:53:45 +0000

Another issue that i think will be prominent is whether the District’s ban is “narrowly tailored” to achieve its goal.

Why do you think “narrow-tailoring” analysis will be a focus of this case, Steve?

By: Jacob Berlove

Jacob Berlove — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:53:32 +0000

Roger,
Thank you very much for the clarification. I still don’t see,however, how this law can be sustained as merely a “regulation” of the right. Rock against Racism is indeed a perfect example of where a right may be regulated. The first amendment was passed to protect the right to speak against fears of the government regulating the right on the grounds that some of the speech is deangerous. That potential future argument was conceded on grounds that speech must be given the benefit of the doubt. No one was concerned that the government might make execessive regulations on grounds of noise, so noise-control ordinances will often be sustained when there are ample alternative channels open, etc.

The individual rights interpetation of the second amendement holds that the right to bear arms was written into the constitution in order to protect the rights of citizens to some sort of self defense (individual and/or against a government tyranny). It was passed due to fears theat the government might restrict the right on the grounds that it is too dangerous to allow citizens to carry arms. So if there are secondary effects from excercise of the right that could be legitimately found, e.g. a study that shows a particular risk of some airborn disease increasing when a certain type of weapon (that perhaps contains asbestos) is carried around, it would make sense to uphold the regulation. But to restrict possession of certain types of weapons on the grounds that they are so dangerous that private citizens can’t be trusted with them is to abridge the right at the very point it was passed to protect.