Neo-Luddite
Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/opinion/18tue2.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=gun&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Read some lies and half-truths from the defacto 'paper of record' for the U.S.
I really can't tell W-H-Y anyone puts up with them except for historical inertia. The argument, if this can be called such, has more holes than a cheese grater.
-Mike
Editorial
The Court Considers Gun Control
Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a politically charged challenge to the District of Columbia’s gun control laws. The case poses a vital question: can cities impose reasonable controls on guns to protect their citizens? The court should rule that they can.
The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned private ownership of handguns. Rifles and shotguns were permitted, if kept disassembled or under an easily removed trigger lock. It is a reasonable law, far from the ban that some anti-gun-control advocates depict.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the law violates the Second Amendment, which 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.” The decision broke with the great majority of federal courts that have examined the issue, including the Supreme Court in 1939. Those courts have held that the constitutional right to bear arms is tied to service in a militia, and is not an individual right.
The appeals court made two mistakes. First, it inflated the Second Amendment into a sweeping right to own guns, virtually without restriction or regulation. Defenders of gun rights argue that if the Supreme Court sticks with the interpretation of the Second Amendment that it sketched out in 1939, it will be eviscerating the right to own a gun, but that is not so. Americans have significant rights to own and carry guns, but the scope of those rights is set by federal, state and local laws.
The second mistake that the appeals court made — one that many supporters of gun rights may concede — was its unduly narrow view of what constitutes a “reasonable” law. The court insisted that its interpretation of the Second Amendment still leaves room for government to impose “reasonable” gun regulations. If so, it is hard to see why it rejected Washington’s rules.
The District of Columbia City Council concluded that prohibiting the easily concealable handguns preferred by criminals, and imposing prudent safety rules on rifles and shotguns, was a good, practical strategy for reducing crime, suicide, domestic violence and accidental shootings. Far from a blanket ban, the law strikes a balance between gun owners and the larger community.
The latest campus massacre, at Northern Illinois University, reminded us all of the dangers that come from too-easy access to weapons best suited for murder. For the high court to choose this moment to strike down reasonable gun rules would defy common sense, and needlessly put innocent people at risk.
Read some lies and half-truths from the defacto 'paper of record' for the U.S.
I really can't tell W-H-Y anyone puts up with them except for historical inertia. The argument, if this can be called such, has more holes than a cheese grater.
-Mike
Editorial
The Court Considers Gun Control
Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a politically charged challenge to the District of Columbia’s gun control laws. The case poses a vital question: can cities impose reasonable controls on guns to protect their citizens? The court should rule that they can.
The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned private ownership of handguns. Rifles and shotguns were permitted, if kept disassembled or under an easily removed trigger lock. It is a reasonable law, far from the ban that some anti-gun-control advocates depict.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the law violates the Second Amendment, which 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.” The decision broke with the great majority of federal courts that have examined the issue, including the Supreme Court in 1939. Those courts have held that the constitutional right to bear arms is tied to service in a militia, and is not an individual right.
The appeals court made two mistakes. First, it inflated the Second Amendment into a sweeping right to own guns, virtually without restriction or regulation. Defenders of gun rights argue that if the Supreme Court sticks with the interpretation of the Second Amendment that it sketched out in 1939, it will be eviscerating the right to own a gun, but that is not so. Americans have significant rights to own and carry guns, but the scope of those rights is set by federal, state and local laws.
The second mistake that the appeals court made — one that many supporters of gun rights may concede — was its unduly narrow view of what constitutes a “reasonable” law. The court insisted that its interpretation of the Second Amendment still leaves room for government to impose “reasonable” gun regulations. If so, it is hard to see why it rejected Washington’s rules.
The District of Columbia City Council concluded that prohibiting the easily concealable handguns preferred by criminals, and imposing prudent safety rules on rifles and shotguns, was a good, practical strategy for reducing crime, suicide, domestic violence and accidental shootings. Far from a blanket ban, the law strikes a balance between gun owners and the larger community.
The latest campus massacre, at Northern Illinois University, reminded us all of the dangers that come from too-easy access to weapons best suited for murder. For the high court to choose this moment to strike down reasonable gun rules would defy common sense, and needlessly put innocent people at risk.
