Friday, June 27, 2008
Stickin' To Our Guns
Illness prevented me from weighing in on the big SCOTUS decision yesterday.
No surprise, I thought the Court got it right. What was most surprising -- for those who read into the tea leaves of innner-Court politics -- was that Antonin Scalia wrote the majority decision. Usually, in a case this big, the Chief Justice opts to write the decision. Given that Scalia is, arguably, the most conservatively doctrinaire justice, it suggests John Roberts was sending some sort of signal by letting Scalia carve out the fine lines of the Second Amendment.
Indeed, from a political standpoint, I would argue that ironically it gives liberals strong rhetorical language on which to craft gun regulations:
Of course, the state-to-state debate -- particularly in New York -- will provide much, ahem, ammo for lawyers and pundits for some time to come.
|
No surprise, I thought the Court got it right. What was most surprising -- for those who read into the tea leaves of innner-Court politics -- was that Antonin Scalia wrote the majority decision. Usually, in a case this big, the Chief Justice opts to write the decision. Given that Scalia is, arguably, the most conservatively doctrinaire justice, it suggests John Roberts was sending some sort of signal by letting Scalia carve out the fine lines of the Second Amendment.
Indeed, from a political standpoint, I would argue that ironically it gives liberals strong rhetorical language on which to craft gun regulations:
Despite the decision’s enormous symbolic significance, it was far from clear that it actually posed much of a threat to the most common gun regulations. Justice Scalia’s opinion applied explicitly just to “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” and it had a number of significant qualifications.Indeed, Obama immediately jumped on this -- and who was saying it:
“Nothing in our opinion,” he said, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.So, while this is definitely a win for the concept of the individual right to gun ownership, it's not quite the across-the-board "win" many conservatives might think it to be.
Of course, the state-to-state debate -- particularly in New York -- will provide much, ahem, ammo for lawyers and pundits for some time to come.
Labels: Second Amendment
Saturday, September 22, 2007
America's Most Important Date...
...is of course September 11th, not July 4th or any other date when we might point to our freedoms were affirmed. And, yes, you are silly if you t hought that the Constitution was designed to cover America during times of war and peace.
No, it's 9/11/01, according to Rudy Giuliani in a speech to the NRA because that was when it was okay to interpret the Second Amendment as actually permitting Americans to own handguns:
This is complete balderdash -- regardless of where one falls on the gun control argument:
If you believe in the right to bear arms, it is because of a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment. September 11th changed nothing; you always believed that. You also likely believe that private gun ownership is an enhancement to crime prevention, not an enducement to committing crimes.
On the other hand, if you believe in the traditional view on gun control, you'd be nuts to think that "September 11th changed everything." Is Giuliani ready to support law-abiding citizens being permitted to pack arms when they get on airlines? I might not have a problem with it, but something tells me that he does.
As an aside: If you are also running for the nomination of a party that believes in things like less regulation and tort reform, you also generally frown upon the idea of dubious third-party lawsuits -- such as those targeting gun manufacturers. Apparently, this epiphany is another thing that changed on 9/11 for Giuliani.
Rudy also showed "how much I love my wife": He "answered" a phone call from Judi during the speech. How cute! Too bad, as Marc Ambinder notes, that he's done it before: You'd think someone would have given Mrs. Giuliani her husband's schedule, so that she'd know when he was in the middle of a speech.
Now, it would be a little more understandable if one of his kids happened to call in the middle of the speech. Uh, oh wait...never mind.
|
No, it's 9/11/01, according to Rudy Giuliani in a speech to the NRA because that was when it was okay to interpret the Second Amendment as actually permitting Americans to own handguns:
At one point, he came close to disavowing a lawsuit against gunmakers that he initiated while mayor of New York.Right.
The 2000 lawsuit sought to hold gunmakers liable for shootings with illegal guns (the case, by chance, was heard this week in a federal appeals court). At the time, Giuliani called it an "aggressive step towards restoring accountability to an industry that profits from the suffering of others."
Yesterday, Giuliani backed away from the lawsuit, saying he might not uphold it if he were a judge.
"That lawsuit has taken several turns and several twists that I don't agree with," he said, without going into specifics.
"I also think that there are some major intervening events -- September 11, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment, doesn't change it fundamentally but perhaps highlights the necessity of it."
This is complete balderdash -- regardless of where one falls on the gun control argument:
If you believe in the right to bear arms, it is because of a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment. September 11th changed nothing; you always believed that. You also likely believe that private gun ownership is an enhancement to crime prevention, not an enducement to committing crimes.
On the other hand, if you believe in the traditional view on gun control, you'd be nuts to think that "September 11th changed everything." Is Giuliani ready to support law-abiding citizens being permitted to pack arms when they get on airlines? I might not have a problem with it, but something tells me that he does.
As an aside: If you are also running for the nomination of a party that believes in things like less regulation and tort reform, you also generally frown upon the idea of dubious third-party lawsuits -- such as those targeting gun manufacturers. Apparently, this epiphany is another thing that changed on 9/11 for Giuliani.
Rudy also showed "how much I love my wife": He "answered" a phone call from Judi during the speech. How cute! Too bad, as Marc Ambinder notes, that he's done it before: You'd think someone would have given Mrs. Giuliani her husband's schedule, so that she'd know when he was in the middle of a speech.
Now, it would be a little more understandable if one of his kids happened to call in the middle of the speech. Uh, oh wait...never mind.
Labels: gun control, NRA, Rudy Giuliani, Second Amendment
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Bloomberg's Moment?
The Virginia Tech massacre will get various gun-control and gun-rights advocates into their predictable positions. New York Daily News columnist Michael Daly can barely hold back his glee at mocking Virginia for having "lax" gun laws (others might describe it as a Second Amendment-friendly state).
I will say, however, that an incident like this is, politically, a great opportunity for a potential candidate who has made the proliferation of "illegal" guns a major point in his administration. The possibility of a Michael Bloomberg independent presidential run just increased, in my view.
The mayor visited Ohio and Kentucky last Thursday to discuss the issue. As everyone knows, there aren't that many electoral votes in Ohio, right?
UPDATE: The New York Sun's Josh Gerstein examines how the shooting makes it harder for Democrats to duck the politics of gun control, which has damaged the party with rural and Southern voters in recenet years. Still, the NRA shouldn't be crowing too much. Politics can change in the blink of an eye:
Based on the polls, there could conceivably three pro-gun control candidates running in the 2008 general election: Hillary Clinton, RudyClinton Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg. Now it is unlikely that Bloomberg would run were Rudy the GOP nominee.
But it's not out of the question either.
UPDATE II: The correct link has now been added to the "unlikely that Bloomberg" phrase; it's a December New York profile of Bloomberg and his possible mayoral run.
UPDATE III: The Rudy reference above was, obviously, a typo. Even despite all those marriages, there's no way Rudy would take Hillary's name...right? Um, unless there's some same-sex thing going on between Rudy and Bill...
|
I will say, however, that an incident like this is, politically, a great opportunity for a potential candidate who has made the proliferation of "illegal" guns a major point in his administration. The possibility of a Michael Bloomberg independent presidential run just increased, in my view.
The mayor visited Ohio and Kentucky last Thursday to discuss the issue. As everyone knows, there aren't that many electoral votes in Ohio, right?
UPDATE: The New York Sun's Josh Gerstein examines how the shooting makes it harder for Democrats to duck the politics of gun control, which has damaged the party with rural and Southern voters in recenet years. Still, the NRA shouldn't be crowing too much. Politics can change in the blink of an eye:
Based on the polls, there could conceivably three pro-gun control candidates running in the 2008 general election: Hillary Clinton, Rudy
But it's not out of the question either.
UPDATE II: The correct link has now been added to the "unlikely that Bloomberg" phrase; it's a December New York profile of Bloomberg and his possible mayoral run.
UPDATE III: The Rudy reference above was, obviously, a typo. Even despite all those marriages, there's no way Rudy would take Hillary's name...right? Um, unless there's some same-sex thing going on between Rudy and Bill...
Labels: gun control, Michael Bloomberg, Second Amendment, Virginia Tech
Monday, April 16, 2007
Black Day in Blacksburg
Gunman kills at least 32 at Virginia Tech University, before he is slain killing himself.
|
Labels: campus shootings, gun control, Second Amendment
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Can't Get There From Here
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed -- unless you're in Washington, D.C.:
While not directly, ahem, targeted toward this specific aspect of D.C.'s gun statutes, this case covering handdgun ownership can't get to the Supreme Court fast enough.
|
The arrest this week of Phillip Thompson, an aide to Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) who carried a loaded pistol into a Senate office building, brought to light a contradiction between the regulations governing the Capitol grounds and the laws covering District streets.Complete and total insanity, of course.
The Capitol grounds are federal property and not subject to the District's strict gun laws, which generally prohibit firearms.
Although some people are allowed to bring guns into the Capitol, they cannot legally get them there, said Lt. Jon Shelton, the longtime head of the D.C. police department's gun unit.
"They can't helicopter them in," Shelton said.
While not directly, ahem, targeted toward this specific aspect of D.C.'s gun statutes, this case covering handdgun ownership can't get to the Supreme Court fast enough.
Labels: gun control, Jim Webb, Second Amendment
