OK, it's not that dramatic. Apparently, 42 states already guarantee the individual right to bear arms, even as they allow for a whole range of reasonable restrictions. As long as the Court incorporates the Amendment and allows for those regulations (as it did in Heller), I don't think we'll have much of a problem. This is how the liberal American Constitution Society put it:
There are two ways to think about "reasonable regulation." The first is what I've long endorsed: the Second Amendment should be governed by the formal "reasonable regulation" standard uniformly used in state constitutional law. Forty-two states have constitutional protections for the individual right to bear arms and all of them apply a deferential standard by this name. Under that test, any regulation will be allowed to stand so long as it doesn't effectively destroy or nullify the individual's right to have a gun for self-defense. Some types of weapons can be banned so long as individuals have access to others. Applying this test, almost all gun control survives.Some people, of course, are more scared about what the dreaded five will do. I liked this Bloomberg article, because it highlights how far the gun control debate has shifted to the right since the Democrats dropped the subject altogether. Even if take a limited view about gun control, it's difficult (at least for me) to justify allowing unconcealed weapons without a permit, or carrying guns into a bar or place of worship or airports. The author, Ann Woolner, even comes up with her own gun amendment (yes, a bit ridiculous, but again, taken in the context of liberal angst, rather understandable):
“Well-regulated firearms, being necessary to the security of the states, the right of the people to be safe from gunfire as they go about their daily lives shall not be infringed.”
The gun debate to me (I suppose because of the specific assumptions that form my viewpoint) is so strange.
ReplyDeleteI view the second amendment as so obviously straightforward that I just don't understand the opposition opinion. Rather than try to tortute the language, why haven't anti-gun folk just offered an amendment to change the text of the 2nd amendment to something they like better?
(Actually, I just assume it's because the judicial fiat method is easier).
Anyway, I'm not making an argument here since I'm well aware that the opposition would take issue with a number of my starting assumptions. I'm merely commenting that for people of my perspective, the second amendment arguments are among the most frustrating and weird.
It's sort of in the vein of Clinton arguing about the definition of "is...."
Er, that should read "torture" not "tortute" :)
ReplyDeleteTerrible.
ReplyDeleteInstead of giving us a responsible opinion piece that presents us with facts and an assessment of those facts, Ann Woolner peddles in innuendo and exaggerations. To make her anti-gun claim, Woolner not only irresponsibly highlights the worst cases of gun violence over the decades, but her piece also conjures up other cases, including ones that never happened. It’s a terrible argument, one that falls on its head with only a modicum of scrutiny.
Let’s start with innuendo in the piece. While it’s fine to imagine a scene where an armed Virginian drunk on love starts a shooting rampage in a bar, let’s leave that worst-case scenario to the pulp novels. It hasn’t happened, so why use it in your argument? And the idea of attending a politically-charged, anger-fueled rally filled with people packing guns is scary to her. Hello? Who does she think attends NRA rallies? Politically-complacent, anti-gun pacifists? I have yet to read a report of a shooting at an NRA rally.
As for the exaggerations: Alberta King’s assassination was a tragedy, to be sure. That she was gunned down in a church one Sunday morning in Woolner’s hometown must make it more personal for her. And it’s always tragic when gun violence occurs in public spaces like schools and government buildings, like that shooting she mentions in Oak Park, Il. But am I wrong to point out that the “one Sunday morning” where Ms. King was killed was over 35 years ago? And does it matter that those Oak Park killings were over 25 years ago? The irony is all-too-delicious when we realize that on the one hand, Woolner advocates changing an amendment because she feels it’s outdated, while on the other hand, she advocates changing that same amendment based on equally outdated incidents. She wants it both ways, doesn’t she?
Listen, I don’t think gun-control advocates have much of a leg to stand on. But so what? I’m still willing to have the debate. So long as this debate is honest. And so long as the debate contains facts and well-thought out arguments. Her argument is bereft of any of those. It’s a terrible argument filled with lies and distortions, one that should have never been written, especially by a journalist.
You see, I’m more interested in what happens in the real world. What about all the times people were saved by guns? For every opinion piece that actually highlights the countless reports of people whose lives were saved by using guns in self-defense, we get scores of trashy opinion pieces like Woolner’s. It’s just that the national agenda is heavily tilted toward more gun control, that’s all. And Woolner’s piece is just another one in a long line of anti-gun arguments that subscribes to this agenda.
Terrible.
Esquire -- I'm disappointed. I thought you'd at least admit that after three years of harping on this point, I had offered an interpretation that wasn't overly "hermeneutical," as you once famously put it.
ReplyDeleteI also like that 'judicial fiat' bit, given that the Supreme Court conservatives overturned a democratically enacted statute in Washington, D.C., last year when they found they declared an individual right to bear arms. (And just watch for all the contortions they'll get themselves into when they find that it's incorporated against the states.)
VM: I agree; Woolner's piece relies heavy on provocation than even-handed analysis. But it's absolutely ludicrous to think the "national agenda is heavily tilted toward more gun control."
The Democrats haven't raised the issue since 2000; President Obama signed bills allowing guns into national parks, and, as Woolner properly documents, states and towns across the country are competing with each other to allow guns wherever they possibly can.
Now, you may say guns 'save' people, but I think it's entirely reasonable some people do not want to be anywhere near the things. And when you see the state of the current debate -- should or should we not allow guns in a Starbucks? -- it's clear where the 'national agenda' tilts.
Re: judicial fiat...
ReplyDeleteDC democratically passes a law that was proposed only because prior liberal judicial fiat deemed it permissible....
To argue that a conservative court cannot later correct the liberal courts departure from legal history b/c to do so would be judicial fiat is cute, but not particularly fair. That leave Conservatives with no vehicle to correct liberal overreach...