As Published On
→ The Out-Lawyer’s
Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
And
The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.com
All
contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright ©
2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by Jay B. Gaskill
Permission
to publish, distribute or print all or part of this article (except for
personal use) is needed. [Permission for use in group discussions is almost
always routinely given.]
Please
contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com
Friday…
Guns,
Death and Democrats
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court (in
District
of Columbia vs. Heller) settled a long standing controversy about gun
ownership and a possession. Is the
vaunted Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” a derivative one, linked to the
“well regulated militias” language of that amendment, or is it an individual
one? The answer is now settled - once
again by a 5 t o4 ruling.
“The Second Amendment protects an
individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,
and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense
within the home.”
Registration and licensing
requirements were not invalidated, per se, but they can’t be used to prohibit
the home possession of firearms – especially pistols, as Justice Scalia reminds us, because they are particularly useful for
self defense.
The court (per Scalia
– well known for his lucid writing) also said:
“Like most rights, the Second
Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For
example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or
state analogues. The Court's opinion should not 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. Miller's holding that the sorts
of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds
support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous
and unusual weapons.”
Political Implications
Both presidential candidates were quick to support the ruling. Senator Obama in his typically measured response, appeared to be reassuring democrats that (a) he is a reasonable guy and (b) the ruling isn’t that bad after all.
Actually, the decision is a good
one for democrats if they are astute enough to absorb the lesson. Self defense in
Political turnout is almost always driven by constituencies frightened by the risk that a candidate or party is going to “take something away”. The surest path to democratic defeat is to “stir up the gun nuts” who turn out to vote as a block at every threat – real or perceived – to the sacred right to gun ownership. Here’s the dirty little secret: They aren’t nuts. Self defense is at the heart of the Second Amendment. If the country arrives at a judicially driven consensus (Think the Brown vs. Board of Education analogy here) that private gun ownership is a right not lightly to be infringed, then the primary beneficiary will be the Democratic Party, the left wing of which always seems to need and benefit from adult supervision.
A similar issue is the death
penalty, one in which too many liberal democrats, too often gravely
misunderstand. Yesterday, I posted a
revised version of “Death, Deterrence and Reform” which should be studied (I
modestly assert) by every liberal democrat or moderate republican who thinks he
or she actually understands the death penalty issue. Go to http://jaygaskill.com/DeathDeterrenceReform.htm
.
And yes, the larger game remains unsettled. Which American political party will – over the next two elections cycles – be best able to capture the populist center? On that larger question, the jury is still out…
JBG