Supreme Court Decision on Guns: Impeccably Reasoned, Precedent Following and Wrong
The 5-4 Supreme Court decision that just came down should surprise no one. It follows logically from their earlier finding that the Federal Government has no right to limit weapons commonly used for self-defense. Now they simply found that neither states nor cities could limit such weapons.
This is clear, coherent, logical and wrong. Their reasoning is pretty simple. If there is a right within the Constitution, then neither city nor state can legally abridge it. Whether you support gun rights or not, you can see what a kind of legal chaos we would have if, say, our right to freedom of speech could be locally limited, if you could speak freely in San Francisco and not Fresno, if what was legal to say in Massachusetts would get you five years in Texas. You really can't argue with their reasoning. If owning guns for self-defense is constitutionally allowed then Washington DC as a Federal District cannot infringe on it nor can cities such as Chicago or Berkeley.
If the Court holds, as it has held, that private ownership of guns is a right falling under the Second Amendment's right to bear arms and a well-regulated militia, then this is all right and proper.
And yet, freedom of speech is, in fact, limited locally, and your right to print erotica or profanity, to swear at a cop or sass a judge can be quite local and vary significantly. The doctrine of "contemporary community standards" varies by what community you are in. A lot of discretion is given to cities and states concerning speech. Are guns really more sacred than speech? Apparently.
Could contemporary community standards also be applied to guns? If I live in a rural area with grizzlies, might I need more powerful means of protection than if I live in a fairly dense suburb? If I run a business in a high crime area, should I be subject to different limits than in a relatively crime free area? The answers are not, in my view, self-evident, but I think the questions are valid.
Finally, for those justices who hold that the Constitution should be read while trying to intuit the original intent of the framers, do they really contemplate that the framers would have wanted private and unregulated ownership of automatic weapons and armor-piercing ammunition? This court rationalizes its position by holding that the framers wanted ordinary citizens (meaning white males but not Native Americans) to be able to protect themselves. Thus, if it was muskets back then and it's automatic rapid-firing pistols today, then these pistols are just fine and constitutionally protected. This, of course, allows for a kind of "living Constitution" that conservatives usually do not accept. But hey, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. So we might be able to negotiate arms reduction treaties with Russia and China. But Los Angeles, Chicago and DC are all constitutionally (un) protected and eternal free-fire zones.
©2010Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.com
Leave a comment