For those of you who haven't heard, the Supreme Court declared a Washington, D.C. ban on handguns unconstitutional this week, by a margin of 5-4. I don't have a handgun, and I don't live in Washington, D.C., but this is still good news to me.
The D.C. law basically outlawed any handgun that was not "registered", and also made it illegal to "register" a handgun. Therefore, all handguns were illegal with one exception. The Chief of Police could issue gun licenses, valid for 1-year. Even so, any licensed gun, could not be kept in the home without being either disassembled, or having a trigger-lock. (I own one gun (a hunting rifle) and I do store it in the home, and I don't have a trigger lock, but a bolt-lock. I just think it's a smart thing to do, especially with kids in the house)
I actually read the court's decision on this issue. The entire document is about 160 pages long, with Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion (64 pages) and Justice Stevens and Breyers each writing a dissenting opinion of about 45 pages each. If you're into debate, then you should read this report. I happen to think Scalia wrote the better opinion, and had more referenced information, whereas Stevens made more unverifiable statements. Anyway, not to bore you...
I won't get into all the details of the arguments, but one thing that I want to comment on is the checks and balances system in our government. Our government was established with three distinct branches, each having it's own distinct role. In our government, the Judicial Branch has the responsibility to make decisions on whether existing laws have been followed... In no way do they have the power to create or amend laws. What we see today in some of the radical judicial districts, and even in some members of the Supreme Court, is judges who are trying to abuse their power in ways that amend laws. Read Stevens' opinion, and you will see what I mean. At one point he rationalizes that since there is a huge gun violence issue in D.C., this should come into consideration when determining if the D.C. handgun ban is "constitutional". If this practice is adopted, then the meaning of the constitution necessarily changes with the season, thus amending the laws therein. Does this seem like a role of the judicial branch to you?
I apologize for my political mood this morning, I'll try to blog about more interesting things in the future...
We are here, we are here, we are here!
12 years ago
4 comments:
I have to read Scalia's opinion, I'm so glad that the court overturned the ban. People that shouldn't have guns will still get them and we should be able to protect ourselves and our families. The Founding Fathers felt bery strongly about being able to keep and bear arms!
I love your political posts!
I think it's sobering that the Supreme Court only called it unconstitutional with a 5-4 vote. That is too close to make me comfortable. It's unbelievable how many people take our constitutional rights lightly.
Ditto Angie. I don't own any guns, they scare me, but I still think people should have the right to own them if they feel it protects their family.
Nice to hear you blogging. I didn't know you were so political.
I'm all for owning guns. Shoot, how many of us own knives, have rocks in our yards, hammers, etc. Anything can be turned into a weapon if you're that desperate...the fact of having a gun on the premises or not isn't going to change someone's desire to harm or not harm.
Post a Comment