‘Right to Bear Arms’ in Washington, D.C., right or wrong?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008 at 12:14 pm
- 4 Comments
When is a right right and when is a right… wrong? In this case, when does one’s “right to bear arms” also trespass on the rights of others? I’m talking about the Supreme Court controversy regarding the constitutionality of the handgun law in Washington, D.C., where nary a gun is allowed, excepting those of police officers.
On Tuesday, March 18, arguments for and against Washington D.C.’s handgun ban were presented in a federal appeals court. This comes after a lower court’s 2-1 vote last year took issue with the ban. So far, a number of the judges appear to be leaning on the side of the individual’s right to carry a gun (with no need to up and join a state militia), according to a transcript of the hearing that is posted on the New York Times website.
Continued: Click “Read more”That would reverse nearly 70 years of legal precedent. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which hasn’t gotten such play since 1791, states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Heather Martens, president of Citizens for a Safer Minnesota (CSM), which lobbies for a public-health approach to prevent gun deaths and injuries, asserted in an email that a decision favoring the right to carry guns could “set off a deluge of legal actions across the country challenging every gun regulation there is, no matter how reasonable.”
CSM is part of the Protect Minnesota campaign, a coalition of gun owners and non-gun owners alike, who are working to ensure background checks for gun purchases and safe gun use. (In Minnesota, a loophole allows for people to buy guns without undergoing a background check.)
Across the state, gun deaths and injuries are on the rise, according to campaign information. Non-fatal firearm injuries across the state more than doubled between 1998 and 2006, while firearm-related deaths increased as well. Firearm homicides, specifically, shot up 53 percent in that same period, as is stated in campaign information.
The Supreme Court debate recycles an old issue and as such, it is standing in the way of resolving firearm-related violence. Right now, “There is very little data available to show which factors contribute to criminal use of firearms,” which Martens attributed to legal parameters on what can be studied. She pointed to the Centers for Disease Control website. The “preventing injury and violence” section includes links to all kinds of injuries, except, of course, from firearms.
4 Comments
Comment posted March 21, 2008 @ 8:57 am
I’m not going to go into all that’s wrong with this piece . . . . . . as I think others have already done quite a good job on that.
Just a couple points of clarification. The “lower court” you refer to is the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That’s kind of a big deal, for that court to weigh in on the subject.
It’s such a big deal that the argument, this Tuesday was, well, technically in front of “a federal appeals court.” But that federal appeals court is more commonly known as the Supreme Court of the United States of America; it’s the highest court in the land.
I think you’ve probably heard of it before?
And that’s the court that pretty clearly signaled its intent to rule that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms, a right that will be subject to some restrictions — just as all other fundamental, individual rights are — but only some.
I don’t expect the astroturf groups like “Citizens for a ‘Safer’ Minnesota” to like that. In fact, once the SCOTUS rules, I’m sure we’re going to continue to hear from the Joyce-funded chicken littles that the sky is falling.
It’ll still be a nice clear blue.
Comment posted March 22, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
thanks for your interest joel — i see that you’re active in gun-related issues and are watching this debate closely (checked out your right to carry website, among others). thanks for your interest and commentary.
AP
Comment posted March 21, 2008 @ 3:57 am
I'm not going to go into all that's wrong with this piece . . . . . . as I think others have already done quite a good job on that.
Just a couple points of clarification. The “lower court” you refer to is the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That's kind of a big deal, for that court to weigh in on the subject.
It's such a big deal that the argument, this Tuesday was, well, technically in front of “a federal appeals court.” But that federal appeals court is more commonly known as the Supreme Court of the United States of America; it's the highest court in the land.
I think you've probably heard of it before?
And that's the court that pretty clearly signaled its intent to rule that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms, a right that will be subject to some restrictions — just as all other fundamental, individual rights are — but only some.
I don't expect the astroturf groups like “Citizens for a 'Safer' Minnesota” to like that. In fact, once the SCOTUS rules, I'm sure we're going to continue to hear from the Joyce-funded chicken littles that the sky is falling.
It'll still be a nice clear blue.
Comment posted March 22, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
thanks for your interest joel — i see that you're active in gun-related issues and are watching this debate closely (checked out your right to carry website, among others). thanks for your interest and commentary.
AP
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
