Category Archives: Second Amendment

Ringo Li, Las Vegas

Saturday, May 27, 2023 | 2 a.m.

The conclusion of the May 23 letter Gun solution is pretty simple is simple, yes, but impossible.

The idea of getting rid of something to solve a problem is just too easy and oversimplified. We simply get rid of guns, and we will not have a gun problem. We simply get rid of drugs, and we will not have drug problems. We simply get rid of criminals, and we will not have crime problems. It is not the idea that is important. It is the implementation that is important.

How do we get rid of guns in the hands of civilians? There are a few obstacles. First, there is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Getting rid of guns would violate the Second Amendment. Second, who is to carry out the policy? The government could send out armed agents and takes the guns by force. However, how would we handle the gun owners who agree with Charlton Heston, who said the government could take his gun from my cold, dead hands?

Lastly, criminals are civilians too; they are certainly not going to get rid of their guns willingly.

There are more guns than people in the United States. It is impossible get rid of guns.

More here:
Simple answer isn't workable - Las Vegas Sun

Al Arabiya, Saudi Arabia, May 26

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced his intention to run for the US presidential primary race in 2024. The young governor has become a phenomenon in the Republican Party and is perhaps the only competition to former President Donald Trump, who is advancing, despite all hardships, in his bid to again clinch the Republican nomination. It is undeniable that DeSantis has a charismatic persona, a glowing record, and a family unit that almost looks like that of the late President John F. Kennedy. Indeed, Ron DeSantis has all the attributes that have led politicians to enter the White House. With a doctorate in law from prestigious Harvard University, DeSantis is considered to be a member of the highly educated American intelligentsia. His service in the US Armed Forces, along with the Bronze Star for his bravery, has enabled him to obtain the so-called green light from the military. DeSantis foray into politics began when he served in the US House of Representatives from 2013 to 2018, before officially becoming the governor of Florida in 2019. Yet where the young governor stands ideologically is still a conundrum to many, especially given the numerous stances DeSantis has expressed over the past year. The darling of the new Republican Party routinely makes the rounds via traditional as well as social media, becoming a leader in the war of ideas that his party has seen fit to wage against a broad range of ideologically diverse politicians, companies, and intellectuals, particularly from the left. Conservatives have helped shape the upcoming presidential contest into one of cultural, ideological, and dogmatic divisions. Gov. DeSantis has taken a hard-line stance on abortion, introducing restrictive laws at six weeks of pregnancy that were even too much for former President Trump to stomach. This raises the question of how deeply his religious convictions really run, and should his Catholicism be an active part of his decisions, or will it be a dormant force as is the case with President Biden, who is Catholic yet openly supports abortion? Besides abortion, there are further issues that reveal Gov. DeSantis rightward leanings. He has ordered schools in Florida to refrain from teaching theories of racial equality and organizing discussions about sexual identity. As more steps are taken to legalize same-sex relationships, and their advocates become more vocal in different states, DeSantis has expressed his rejection of what he calls fraudulent tolerance regarding the LGBT community in the United States. This wins over millions of traditional conservatives but also alienates millions of others who see him as being extreme. DeSantis appears far removed from circles that favor the casual use of firearms among civilians, yet he did not directly address the matter of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which concerns this right. The issue of illegal immigration, on the other hand, is one of those issues on which DeSantis takes a firm stance, and he has not let up on his claims that the Biden Administrations lax policies at the border have enabled a massive influx of undocumented immigrants into the country. He continues to emphasize what he views as the damaging impacts of illegal immigration resulting from the federal governments careless border policies. A follower of DeSantiss ideology might be perplexed, especially since he does not uphold the consensus of the broader Republican Party, as evidenced in his stance on abortion. This begs the question: Who is placing their faith in the Florida governor? Banning abortion is popular among some conservatives in the Republican voting base, yet this has caused many to swing their votes in favor of the Democrats. It is no secret that the Democrats have been a hindrance to many of DeSantis initiatives, particularly those spearheaded by the more progressive wing of the party and the Democratic National Committee. Recently, the DNC described DeSantis abortion ban as extreme and declared that it disrupts womens ability to make health care decisions before they even know they are pregnant. It has been widely speculated that DeSantis could be in the running for the White House in 2024 or 2028, which one can infer from the title of his recent memoir, The Courage to Be Free: Floridas Blueprint for Americas Revival. The book offers an understanding of DeSantis convictions, although he has shied away from discussing his potential ambitions on the national stage. Nevertheless, it is clear that his administration in Florida is a reflection of his values and views on American politics. The trajectory of DeSantis life has demonstrated that he is a paragon of nobility among politicians: one who is able and willing to stand by their conscience, regardless of possible consequences or rewards. This staunchness sets him apart, raising him above engaging in political disputes and entrusting him with the noble aim of improving America and restoring its damaged moral compass. Could DeSantis be Americas next leader? Emile Amin (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)

Read the rest here:
DeSantis and the Road to the White House - The Media Line

success for parents who dont want gun stores near their schools often depends on a variety of factors: the political climate in a town, state firearms laws, buy-in from local officials. Opponents say restrictions harm small businesses or potentially infringe on Second Amendment rights. (Getty Images) (Icy Macload/Getty Images)

Ashley Singleton never thought of herself an activist until a gun store opened next to her sons elementary school.

While the nondescript brick storefront was under construction, she passed it twice a day in the school car line. Shed assumed it might be a doctors office; it looked like many other small businesses in Madison, a middle-class suburb in North Alabama known mostly for its good schools and proximity to the city of Huntsville, a tech hub thats become the states fastest growing metro.

But one morning in the school drop-off line, Singleton saw the business had a new sign: Rocket City Armory.

After dropping off her first-grader at school, Singleton went home and looked up the business.

It was a firearms customization and repair shop that would also sell guns. Its property line sits less than 500 feet from that of Midtown Elementary, which has nearly 900 students in pre-K through fifth grades. Around the corner, about the same distance away, is Primrose School, a private preschool and child care center. The armory has four large front windows and its sign bears a rifle crossed with a Saturn V rocket, a nod to Huntsvilles history in NASAs Apollo space program.

My son can see (the gun store) from the school playground, Singleton said. Hes 7. If the store was anywhere else, I would not care. But who in their right mind would put anything to do with guns almost directly between a preschool and an elementary school?

Its a question more communities have begun grappling with as parents and policymakers look for solutions to combat a rising tide of gun violence and school-based shootings. More than two-thirds of American parents say theyre concerned a shooting could happen at their childrens school. Late last year, gun violence surpassed car accidents as the leading killer of children and teens in the United States. Active shooter drills are as common as fire drills in American schools.

At the state and federal levels, debate over gun violence prevention remains intensely partisan and mostly gridlocked. Democratic lawmakers push for tighter restrictions around guns while Republicans refuse to support policies they see as infringing on Second Amendment rights.

But in some communities, pockets of parents like Singleton are pushing for change at the most local of levels: municipal zoning ordinances. In the past few years, dozens of towns across the country, from California to Nevada to Massachusetts, have enacted local laws to ban gun stores from operating near sensitive areas like schools and child care centers.

I would say these efforts have been mostly successful, said Allison Anderman, senior counsel and director of local policy at GIffords Law Center, a nonprofit focused on ending gun violence. We zone lots of businesses away from sensitive areas because they pose heightened risks: cannabis shops, adult businesses, even car repair shops. Theres no reason sellers of lethal weapons could not also be included.

But success for parents who dont want gun stores near their schools often depends on a variety of factors: the political climate in a town, state firearms laws, buy-in from local officials. Opponents say restrictions harm small businesses or potentially infringe on Second Amendment rights.

For Singleton and a group of fellow Madison city parents, their ultimate goal is to get the armory moved somewhere else. Theyve contacted the mayors office, their city council members, local police, spoken at city council meetings, done spots on local TV news and circulated petition thats garnered more than 800 signatures. They also hope to push the city to create zoning restrictions that would prevent gun stores from opening near any other schools in town.

Im an introverted person; Im not a social justice warrior, said Singleton. But I cant take a backseat on this one because not only could this affect (my sons) physical safety, but for me its also about his mental health. School shootings have such an impact on our kids lives, and their learning, and how they navigate their campus.

Now they can see a visible reminder while theyre outside playing basketball.

Lauren Zack, whose 4-year-old daughter attends Primrose, first noticed the Rocket City Armory sign as she was dropping off her daughter at preschool. As soon as she got home that day, she said called the Madison Police Department and asked what the active shooter protocol was for her daughters school.

Thats not something I ever thought I would need to do, she said. My biggest concern is that somebody could stand in that parking lot and shoot up the Primrose playground and be gone before anybody could call the police.

A 1990s-era federal law bans guns within 1,000 feet of a school, but the law has several exceptions, including for private property that isnt part of a school campus.

The owner of Rocket City Armory, Jared Hill, acknowledged parents concerns about the proximity of his business to the schools in an emailed statement to Reckon.

When Rocket City Armory opens, we promise to uphold all firearm laws including the requirement that all firearms are to be unloaded before entering and leaving our establishment, he said. We will not allow unaccompanied minors to enter our store without adult supervision. The safety of children and neighbors in Madison is critically important to our Rocket City Armory family.

The storefront is not yet open, but its Facebook page currently has more than 1,300 followers. Hill said in his statement that he wants his business to raise awareness about firearm safety standards in Alabama, as well as teach about the history and artistry of the trade of gunsmithing, which involves the repair, design and modification of firearms.

Last year in North Carolina, state Sen. Natalie Murdock proposed legislation that would have created a statewide study to determine whether banning gun stores within 1,400 feet of schools or child care centers would improve safety of school-age children.

The idea was to put forward a new, out-of-the-box solution, said Murdock. I still support universal background checks, red flag laws and safe storage laws. But what if we can also not make it convenient for someone to go to a gun store, then walk up the street to a school? If thats not common sense, I dont know what is.

Research is scant on the impact of gun stores operating near schools. One 2020 study in California found the proximity of gun stores to schools was significantly associated with an increase in students bringing guns onto school campuses.

Most states have a state law that specifically restricts how local municipalities are allowed to regulate firearms, including firearms sales. California is one state that does not, and Anderman said at least 29 jurisdictions have enacted local laws banning gun sales near child-sensitive areas like schools, daycares, libraries and parks.

More are starting to follow that lead.

In February, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors called for an ordinance that would require a 1,000-foot buffer zone between gun stores and child-sensitive areas like schools. In March, after several months studying potential gun safety regulations, officials in Redwood City, Calif., proposed an ordinance that would create a 300-foot buffer between gun stores and sensitive facilities like schools, daycares, libraries and parks.

Anderman said guns and gun stores can be high value targets for theft. Last year, she joined her neighbors in Phoenix to oppose the city granting a permit to a gun dealer to sell weapons from his home near an elementary school.

At the hearing a police officer spoke, she said, saying its a terrible idea (to allow a gun dealer to operate near a school), citing the number of times he had to chase a suspect whod stolen guns.

In that case, the gun dealer actually withdrew his request for a permit.

Hill, the armory owner, told the public at the city council meeting that he was committed to upholding strict firearms storage and handling requirements for his customers, and had installed state-of-the-art security systems.

But some Madison parents who spoke with Reckon said they worried that an incident at the armory such as an accidental discharge or a disgruntled customer making threats could send the nearby schools into lockdown.

The bottom line is, how close would you want your children to be to an area where guns are handled regularly, without you there? said Alex Vaughn, the parent of Midtown Elementary students, at the city council meeting. Would you want oversight of that area? I think you would.

Other parents said they worry more about the mental and emotional impact of their children seeing a gun store so near their school campuses.

My third-grader is at an age where shes really taking in information and able to process things like this, said Rebekah Faris, who has three children at Midtown Elementary. She told me she and her friends were talking at school about the Nashville shooting in which three students and three staffers were killed by an armed assailant at Covenant School in March.

She and her friends know whats going on, they know about school shootings and they express their fears and anxiety, Faris said. Of course we want them to be physically safe, but its also troubling for them, mentally, to drive by this every day and see a gun store right next to their school.

Nationally, efforts to create buffer zones around schools tend to succeed when community stakeholders can generate support among enough local leaders, including local law enforcement, said Anderman. Getting zoning laws revised is less likely when the new restrictions would displace an existing small business, she said.

Singleton acknowledged the chance of getting the armory moved isnt high, but shes determined to keep pushing: My new goal is to ultimately do something about zoning like this in the future so we dont have this same situation.

Meanwhile, the city of Madison recently approved the construction of Big Blue Marble Academy, a 12,000-square-foot child care center scheduled to open this autumn, just across the street from Rocket City Armory.

Visit link:
Should gun stores be allowed near schools? These parents are ... - Reckon

Hawaiians can now carry billy clubs and batons for self-defense as the legal fight over the weapons ends.

On Tuesday, United States District Judge Jill A. Otake implemented a permanent injunction on the law prohibiting Hawaiian citizens from carrying billy clubs as a condition of a settlement in Yukutake v. Shikada. The settlement allows law-abiding Hawaiians to own and carry cudgels, truncheons, police batons, collapsible batons, billy clubs, or nightsticks for their protection. It also orders the state to pay $50,000 to cover the plaintiffs legal fees.

[T]he Attorney General shall direct her agents and all other persons under her authority to comply with the terms of this Injunction and will direct all persons under the legal authority of the Attorney General not to enforce the billy provision of HRS 134-51(a) as set forth in the Injunction, Judge Otake wrote in his order.

The settlement offers citizens of the state, which has some of the countrys strictest weapons regulations, a new opportunity to carry at least some kinds of concealed weapons. It also represents a new high water mark for Second Amendment advocates looking to expand the amendments protections to arms other than guns. It may also crack the door for changes in other states where baton and billy club bans are already being challenged. At least ten other states still prohibit the carrying batons, including California, New York, and Illinois.

Alan Beck, the plaintiffs attorney, argued the settlement is a win for all Hawaiians.

I am very glad the people of Hawaii will have access to batons after today, he said in a statement. They are a practical means of self-defense.

Beck has also won a series of Second Amendment cases related to weapons that arent firearms. Last year, the countrys final ban on stun guns was struck down in a lawsuit filed by Beck. It was the culmination of a successful decade-long fight to eliminate such prohibitions, a campaign that saw the most law changes of any as a result of the Supreme Courts landmark 2008 ruling in Heller v. DC.

Now, in the wake of another landmark Supreme Court Second Amendment ruling last year, Beck has turned his attention toward baton bans. In addition to the Hawaii suit, he has filed suit against Californias near-total ban on the possession of billy clubs.

Hawaii has some of the most expansive gun laws in the country, making it more difficult to legally buy and carry a gun than most other states. It has issued few concealed carry permits since being forced to abandon its subjective permitting law by last years landmark Supreme Court ruling. Lawmakers are also looking to vastly expand restrictions on where those with permits can carry their firearms in the near future. Some localities have already implemented new gun-free zones.

Under the settlement, Hawaiians now have the option of carrying billy clubs for self-defense without having to obtain a permit. The comparative ease of getting batons and carrying them legally as opposed to firearms may make the weapons more popular in the state.

Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez (D.) did not respond to a request for comment.

View post:
Hawaii Agrees to Drop Baton Ban After Losing Court Fight - The Reload

To paraphrase a misquoted Mark Twain: The demise of San Francisco is greatly exaggerated. We just spent five glorious days in the city and had the time of our lives.

Fantastic restaurants in the Outer Sunset, on Divisadero, in North Beach. Baseball at Oracle Park. Dear San Francisco one of the best shows Ive seen in years at Club Fugazi. Fun neighborhood bars. We took Muni everywhere. It was clean, it was efficient, it was affordable. It was safe.

No, San Francisco is not the city of my youth, and yes, San Francisco has plenty of issues to deal with, but it is a welcoming, vibrant city still full of promise.

In 1911, President William Howard Taft called San Francisco, The city that knows how, and it has continually shown the world that, indeed, it does. And it still does, today.

Tim Dineen, Beaverton, Ore.

I am appalled that the National Park Service continues to put cattle ranching first over the native tule elk at Point Reyes National Seashore. Tourists like myself do not want to visit Point Reyes to see cattle. Places like a national seashore are meant to protect wildlife, not ranching.

The National Park Service continues to allow preventable deaths of tule elk inside the park. With problems such as having to ship water to these elk and having to cull their numbers, the cheaper option is eliminating ranching at Point Reyes and removing elk fences to stop limiting where they can go. Having free-ranging herds, the elk can find water themselves. I will never visit Point Reyes if the park service continues putting cattle over wildlife.

John Marchwick, Eureka

At the Battle of Yorktown that ended the Revolutionary War, George Washington led an army of 20,000 soldiers against 9,000 British troops. The Brown Bess musket used by the British and American Army could fire three rounds a minute. At that rate, it would take a lone gunman over five days to fire upon every soldier on the Yorktown battlefield.

Modern assault-style weapons like the AR-15 used in this weeks New Mexico mass shooting can fire hundreds of rounds per minute, and the most lethal of modern assault weapons could have killed every soldier at the Battle of Yorktown in under 30 minutes. The authors of the Second Amendment could never have envisioned how firearms would evolve.

If George Washington were to return in 2026 on our nations 250th birthday, he might wonder why our nation had not updated the Second Amendment to preserve the security of a free State by restricting civilian access to military-grade weapons.

John Maa, San Francisco

Regarding the debt ceiling crisis, the elephant in the room is outrageous military spending. Americas annual military spending is now around $900 billion, roughly 40% of the worlds total and greater than the next 10 countries combined!

We need to cut the Pentagon budget.

Ivona Xiezopolski, Hayward

Continued here:
Demise of S.F. exaggerated. It's still a great city to visit - San Francisco Chronicle

The Joint Committee of the three European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA - ESAs) launched today a public consultation to amend the Implementing Regulations on the mapping of credit assessments of External Credit Assessment Institutions (ECAIs) for credit risk. The Implementing Regulations are part of the EU Single Rulebook for banking and insurance aimed at creating a safe and sound regulatory framework consistently applicable across the European Union (EU). The consultation runs until 26 June 2023.

The proposed amendments reflect the outcome of a monitoring exercise on the adequacy of existing mappings, namely those to the credit quality steps (CQS) allocation for four ECAIs and the introduction of new credit rating scales for seven ECAIs as well as the withdrawal of the registration of one ECAI.

In the Implementing Regulations on the mapping of ECAIs, adopted by the European Commission on 11 October 2016, the three ESAs specified an approach that establishes the correspondence between credit ratings and the credit quality steps defined in the Capital Requirements Regulation(CRR) and in the Solvency II Directive.

The ESAs also published individual draft mapping reports illustrating how the methodology was applied to produce the amended mappings in line with the CRR mandate.

Comments to the Consultation Paper on the mapping under Article 136 of the CRR can be sent by clicking on the "send your comments" button on theEBA's consultation page. Comments to the Consultation Paper on the mapping under Article 109 (a) of the Solvency II Directive can be provided by sending an e-mail to 2023Public.Consultation.ECAI.Mapping@eiopa.europa.eu. Please note that the deadline for the submission of comments is 26 June 2023.

All contributions received will be published following the close of the consultation, unless requested otherwise.

Apublic hearingon this consultation will take place on the 7 June 2023 from 14:00 to 15:00 CEST. The deadline for registration is 5 June 2023 at 16:00 CEST.

The proposed revised draft ITSs have been developed according to Article 136 (1) and (3) of Regulation 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation) and of Article 109 (a) of Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II Directive), which state that revised draft ITS shall be submitted by the ESAs, where necessary.

This change follows a third amendment to the Implementing Regulations, which was proposed by the ESAs in June 2021 and adopted by the European Commission on 16 November 2021. The first amendment reflected the withdrawal of the registration of one ECAI and the recognition of five additional ECAIs since the adoption of the Implementing Regulations in October 2016. The second amendment reflected the outcomes of a monitoring exercise on the adequacy of existing mappings, namely changes to the CQS allocation for two ECAIs and the introduction of new credit rating scales for ten ECAIs. Finally, the third amendment reflected the production of mappings for two newly established ECAIs and the outcomes of a monitoring exercise on the adequacy of existing mappings, namely changes to the CQS allocation for two ECAIs and the introduction of new credit rating scales for nine ECAIs.

Link:
ESAs consult to amend technical standards on the mapping of ... - ESMA

Courthouse sparring is ramping up in a case that could eventually decide whether Washingtons newly adopted ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles is constitutional.

Gun rights advocates filed the lawsuit in federal district court in Tacoma on April 25, the same day Gov. Jay Inslee signed the legislation. On Monday, Attorney General Bob Ferguson registered his opposition to the challengers request for a preliminary injunction to block the laws enforcement while the litigation unfolds.

Under the law, which went into effect immediately, the state barred the sale, distribution and importation of certain firearms defined as assault weapons. Legal owners already in possession of the guns are free to keep them and there is a provision allowing gun shops to sell remaining inventory to out-of-state buyers.

The new filing from the attorney general outlines his theory for why the firearm prohibitions should be upheld under the Second Amendment, following a landmark Supreme Court decision last year that narrowed the path for states to regulate guns.

Central to that high court ruling, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, is the concept that gun restrictions must be consistent with the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation in order for them to pass constitutional muster.

Ferguson argues that Washingtons law clears this bar, pointing to how U.S. authorities have a long history of regulating weapons, including clubs, knives and fully automatic rifles.

Just like bazookas, machine guns, and grenade launchers, assault weapons are not covered by the Second Amendment because they are not tools of self-defense; rather, they are designed to injure and kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, his brief says.

Moreover, it adds, Washingtons regulation of assault weapons fits comfortably within the long historical tradition of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons.

Over the past decade, semiautomatic, AR-style, rifles have increasingly drawn scrutiny as killers have used them repeatedly in mass shootings, including at Connecticuts Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012, where a gunman murdered 26 people, including 20 children, and in the shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas last year that left 19 children and two teachers dead.

Gun rights advocates argue the firearms restricted by Washingtons law dont fall into a category that is susceptible to regulation, which includes dangerous and unusual weapons that are not in common use. Therefore, they contend, these guns cannot be banned.

They note there are an estimated 24 million AR-style rifles, or similar models, in circulation nationwide.

The firearms at issue are in common use and so the Washington Ban is unconstitutional, full stop, reads their request for a preliminary injunction, filed May 4.

Fergusons brief knocks what it describes as the popularity-contest argument the plaintiffs make about how widespread the guns are, saying it leads to the absurd conclusion that a firearms constitutional status turns on whether the gun industry chooses to engage in mass campaigns to flood the market.

Plaintiffs include three Washington residents who say they would buy the banned weapons if they could, a gun shop in Vancouver unable to sell the firearms, and two gun advocacy groupsthe Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition.

The dispute is before U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Bryan who was appointed to the bench in 1986.

Washington is one of 10 states to have adopted prohibitions on semiautomatic rifles, according to Everytown For Gun Safety, which pushes for tighter gun laws. The group notes that from 2009 to 2022, nine out of the 10 mass shooting incidents with the most casualties involved the use of at least one assault-style weapon.

Another challenge to Washingtons law is pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and gun rights supporters also filed a case in Grant County Superior Court. The Grant County case was recently shifted to a Thurston County court.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a request to step in and prevent the enforcement of an Illinois ban on the sale and distribution of AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles. Those restrictions are now likely to stay in place while a lawsuit over them moves ahead in a Chicago federal appeals court.

Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com. Follow Washington State Standard on Facebook and Twitter.

Read more:
'Not tools of self-defense': Ferguson makes case for Washington's ... - The Columbian

Lawrence ODonnell Airs Old Clip of Republican Chief Justice Calling the Second Amendment a Fraud on the American Public  Mediaite

Read the original post:
Lawrence ODonnell Airs Old Clip of Republican Chief Justice Calling the Second Amendment a Fraud on the American Public - Mediaite

Marshall University Prof: Cops and Vets Earn Their Second Amendment Rights Through Months of Training  The Truth About Guns

See original here:
Marshall University Prof: Cops and Vets Earn Their Second Amendment Rights Through Months of Training - The Truth About Guns

The right to keep and bear arms is a lot like the right to freedom of speech. In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to be insulated from the ordinary political process. Neither right, however, is absolute. The First Amendment, for example, has never protected perjury, fraud, or countless other crimes that are committed through the use of speech. Similarly, no reasonable person could believe that violent criminals should have unrestricted access to guns, or that any individual should possess a nuclear weapon.

Inevitably, courts must draw lines, allowing government to carry out its duty to preserve an orderly society, without unduly infringing the legitimate interests of individuals in expressing their thoughts and protecting themselves from criminal violence. This is not a precise science or one that will ever be free from controversy.

One judicial approach, however, should be unequivocally rejected. During the nineteenth century, courts routinely refused to invalidate restrictions on free speech that struck the judges as reasonable. This meant that speech got virtually no judicial protection. Government suppression of speech can usually be thought to serve some reasonable purpose, such as reducing social discord or promoting healthy morals. Similarly, most gun control laws can be viewed as efforts to save lives and prevent crime, which are perfectly reasonable goals. If thats enough to justify infringements on individual liberty, neither constitutional guarantee means much of anything.

During the twentieth century, the Supreme Court finally started taking the First Amendment seriously. Today, individual freedom is generally protected unless the government can make a strong case that it has a real need to suppress speech or expressive conduct, and that its regulations are tailored to that need. The legal doctrines have become quite complex, and there is room for disagreement about many of the Courts specific decisions. Taken as a whole, however, this body of case law shows what the Court can do when it appreciates the value of an individual right enshrined in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment also raises issues about which reasonable people can disagree. But if the Supreme Court takes this provision of the Constitution as seriously as it now takes the First Amendment, which it should do, there will be some easy issues as well.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) is one example. The right of the people protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like the right[s] of the people protected by the First and Fourth Amendments. The Constitution does not say that the Second Amendment protects a right of the states or a right of the militia, and nobody offered such an interpretation during the Founding era. Abundant historical evidence indicates that the Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against unlawful violence. Such threats might come from usurpers of governmental power, but they might also come from criminals whom the government is unwilling or unable to control.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) was also an easy case under the Courts precedents. Most other provisions of the Bill of Rights had already been applied to the states because they are deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition. The right to keep and bear arms clearly meets this test.

The text of the Constitution expressly guarantees the right to bear arms, not just the right to keep them. The courts should invalidate regulations that prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons in public, where the vast majority of violent crimes occur. First Amendment rights are not confined to the home, and neither are those protected by the Second Amendment.

Nor should the government be allowed to create burdensome bureaucratic obstacles designed to frustrate the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The courts are vigilant in preventing government from evading the First Amendment through regulations that indirectly abridge free speech rights by making them difficult to exercise. Courts should exercise the same vigilance in protecting Second Amendment rights.

Some other regulations that may appear innocuous should be struck down because they are little more than political stunts. Popular bans on so-called assault rifles, for example, define this class of guns in terms of cosmetic features, leaving functionally identical semi-automatic rifles to circulate freely. This is unconstitutional for the same reason that it would violate the First Amendment to ban words that have a French etymology, or to require that French fries be called freedom fries.

In most American states, including many with large urban population centers, responsible adults have easy access to ordinary firearms, and they are permitted to carry them in public. Experience has shown that these policies do not lead to increased levels of violence. Criminals pay no more attention to gun control regulations than they do to laws against murder, rape, and robbery. Armed citizens, however, prevent countless crimes and have saved many lives. Whats more, the most vulnerable peopleincluding women, the elderly, and those who live in high crime neighborhoodsare among the greatest beneficiaries of the Second Amendment. If the courts require the remaining jurisdictions to stop infringing on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, their citizens will be more free and probably safer as well.

Read the rest here:
Interpretation: The Second Amendment | Constitution Center