Remember when those crazy locals in Washington, D.C. tried to ban handguns, only to see the Supreme Court rule the ban unconstitutional and essentially yell "Play on!" to the D.C. citizens who like to murder each other at six times the national rate? Well, guess who's gonna be hearing another big-city gun case. That's right! Your favorite panel of nine will get to decide what the entire city of Chicago isn't allowed to decide on its own. This Wall Street Journal piece, released late this morning, shows that the Supreme Court will be reviewing, among other things, a Chicago handgun ban. The chief judge for the then-presiding Court of Appeals, Frank Easterbrook (a Ronald Reagan appointee), defended his court's decision to uphold the ban when he wrote, "Federalism is an older and more deeply routed tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon." In other words, he's a states' rights guy; he even added that "local differences are to be cherished." And if this weren't about gun ownership, a guaranteed American right that conservatives typically love, you and I would completely agree with that last quotation. Of course, the SC has pretty much decided in recent history that Courts of Appeals shouldn't be the final authority on Second-Amendment cases. Sonya Sotomayor agrees, and we groan on principle.
Gun control is pretty far down on the list for me. The criminals will find a way to kill me with or without bans--perhaps even with or without guns (!)--so it's my job to avoid places where violent crime is widespread. As conservatives, we love our local rights and despise unnecessary federal intervention, but what about when a town wants to ban handguns? Do we want the SC setting them straight? GM, as someone who would get my vote for any political election, please set me straight on where we should stand.
-JW
JW,
I'm always annoyed when principles get in the way of what I'd really like to believe. In this case, I'd love it if all guns could be wiped from the face of the earth at my mere command, but I'm mindful that deeper issues are at stake. Having never discharged, touched, or been in the same room with a loaded weapon, I'd be fine with sacrificing your right to hunt on the altar of my right not to be fired upon, but I understand that the matter is more complex than that. We're dealing with self-protection here, and we're dealing with regional identity. Both are significant, and neither should be lightly disturbed.
The problem, I think, occurs when those in love with theory (liberals) attempt to converse with those who favor practice (conservatives). Though banning handguns and other firearms is a theoretical nicety, and one I like on paper, even an incidental examination of the "war" on drugs suggests that commercial realities fail to heed the dictates of politicians. If enough people want something, someone will find a way to sell it to them, and the idea that taking guns out of the hands of criminals is a possibility is either wishful thinking or willful blindness.
Furthermore, while this is a situation where I'd normally apply the principles of Originalism, an attempt to parse the absurdly-structured 2nd Amendment is an exercise in grammatical and syntactical futility. I spend half my professional life dealing with pesky commas, but I'm ready to assert that numbers one and three in the sentence that follows are among the worst ever written:
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.
Seriously, guys. What the f--k?
If it's safe to assume, as many have, that the commas following "militia" and "arms" are grammatical archaisms, we're still left with the worst of Originalist dilemmas. The main thrust of the amendment (the prohibition against infringment) is syntactically beholden to a historical rather than a contemporary reality. Guns, the framers seem to be saying, have a purpose in the life of a free state. What happens, though, when society moves past the framers' understanding of that purpose?
I'll argue, if I'm forced to choose a side, that the central position of the amendment should be obeyed whether or not the first thirteen words still work for us. There's a reason, after all, why dependent clauses are said to be subordinate.
In any case, it's obvious why the Court agreed to hear this newest case. They didn't go far enough in Heller, and they want to expand it westward. First the District, now the states and cities. Lock and load, boys. Fire at will.
I'm always annoyed when principles get in the way of what I'd really like to believe. In this case, I'd love it if all guns could be wiped from the face of the earth at my mere command, but I'm mindful that deeper issues are at stake. Having never discharged, touched, or been in the same room with a loaded weapon, I'd be fine with sacrificing your right to hunt on the altar of my right not to be fired upon, but I understand that the matter is more complex than that. We're dealing with self-protection here, and we're dealing with regional identity. Both are significant, and neither should be lightly disturbed.
The problem, I think, occurs when those in love with theory (liberals) attempt to converse with those who favor practice (conservatives). Though banning handguns and other firearms is a theoretical nicety, and one I like on paper, even an incidental examination of the "war" on drugs suggests that commercial realities fail to heed the dictates of politicians. If enough people want something, someone will find a way to sell it to them, and the idea that taking guns out of the hands of criminals is a possibility is either wishful thinking or willful blindness.
Furthermore, while this is a situation where I'd normally apply the principles of Originalism, an attempt to parse the absurdly-structured 2nd Amendment is an exercise in grammatical and syntactical futility. I spend half my professional life dealing with pesky commas, but I'm ready to assert that numbers one and three in the sentence that follows are among the worst ever written:
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.
Seriously, guys. What the f--k?
If it's safe to assume, as many have, that the commas following "militia" and "arms" are grammatical archaisms, we're still left with the worst of Originalist dilemmas. The main thrust of the amendment (the prohibition against infringment) is syntactically beholden to a historical rather than a contemporary reality. Guns, the framers seem to be saying, have a purpose in the life of a free state. What happens, though, when society moves past the framers' understanding of that purpose?
I'll argue, if I'm forced to choose a side, that the central position of the amendment should be obeyed whether or not the first thirteen words still work for us. There's a reason, after all, why dependent clauses are said to be subordinate.
In any case, it's obvious why the Court agreed to hear this newest case. They didn't go far enough in Heller, and they want to expand it westward. First the District, now the states and cities. Lock and load, boys. Fire at will.
-GM
No comments:
Post a Comment