By TIM KILLEEN
Yesterday, in a fairly expected decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chicago's all-out ban on handguns. Emphasizing the 2nd Amendment's language that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"- and completely ignoring the beginning of the sentence "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"- the 5-4 decision finds that American citizens have the right to keep handguns in their home for self protection. (The Ct. did, however, find that cities and states may impose "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership). Rather than debate whether or not this is a good decision (because everyone and their mother will do that), I think it's important to look at the arguments- and those making them- in favor of unencumbered gun ownership.
The first thing I've noticed about those who are pro v. anti gun control is a major divide in how guns are viewed culturally. Many (though certainly not all) gun enthusiasts live in, or have ties to, more rural areas. For them, guns are more about hunting, utility and sport shooting than anything else. Many (though certainly not all) gun control advocates live in more urban settings. For them, guns are about street violence and gang activity. There often seems a disconnect when these two groups come together to discuss the issue, as the former see any intrusion on gun ownership as the start of a slippery slope toward the government taking all their guns; and the latter sees a refusal of ownership restrictions as an invitation for more violence. Neither are completely correct and, perhaps, if we were to acknowledge the cultural differences there, a middle ground could more easily be found.
Another interesting dynamic that seems to come up in the gun control debate is the federal v. local government issue. Almost universally, those who advocate loudly for more access to guns also advocate against an expansive federal government. "States and local governments should be allowed to run things their own way," they say, "we don't need a Dept. of Education or a Dept. of Health deciding things thousands of miles away." Fair enough. I, personally, find that federal departments can create the type of singular national standards that are needed in certain areas, but I understand others disagree. But how, then, can those same people turn around and rail against a local government (City of Chicago) when it makes a choice on gun control and ask the federal courts to intervene? What happened to the love of local government there?
Such hypocritical oddities can also be seen in Justice Scalia's bewildering decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the D.C. handgun ban case upon which yesterday's ruling relied. Scalia, ever the "strict constructionalist," loves to consider exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when writing what they wrote. However, he poorly tries to dance around the fact that the opening clause of the Second Amendment lays out the exact purpose for which the founders expected the people to keep and bear arms (which did not include personal protection from home invasion). It's also interesting to consider that, in this case, the right to keep and bear arms was brought in under the Privileges and Immunities Clause (see pages 4 and on)- one which has been an historical enemy of the political right. As we go into the Senate's hearings on Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, it's important to consider just exactly how important a Supreme Court Justice can be and what terribly far-reaching effects their decisions can have.
Yesterday, in a fairly expected decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chicago's all-out ban on handguns. Emphasizing the 2nd Amendment's language that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"- and completely ignoring the beginning of the sentence "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"- the 5-4 decision finds that American citizens have the right to keep handguns in their home for self protection. (The Ct. did, however, find that cities and states may impose "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership). Rather than debate whether or not this is a good decision (because everyone and their mother will do that), I think it's important to look at the arguments- and those making them- in favor of unencumbered gun ownership.
The first thing I've noticed about those who are pro v. anti gun control is a major divide in how guns are viewed culturally. Many (though certainly not all) gun enthusiasts live in, or have ties to, more rural areas. For them, guns are more about hunting, utility and sport shooting than anything else. Many (though certainly not all) gun control advocates live in more urban settings. For them, guns are about street violence and gang activity. There often seems a disconnect when these two groups come together to discuss the issue, as the former see any intrusion on gun ownership as the start of a slippery slope toward the government taking all their guns; and the latter sees a refusal of ownership restrictions as an invitation for more violence. Neither are completely correct and, perhaps, if we were to acknowledge the cultural differences there, a middle ground could more easily be found.
Another interesting dynamic that seems to come up in the gun control debate is the federal v. local government issue. Almost universally, those who advocate loudly for more access to guns also advocate against an expansive federal government. "States and local governments should be allowed to run things their own way," they say, "we don't need a Dept. of Education or a Dept. of Health deciding things thousands of miles away." Fair enough. I, personally, find that federal departments can create the type of singular national standards that are needed in certain areas, but I understand others disagree. But how, then, can those same people turn around and rail against a local government (City of Chicago) when it makes a choice on gun control and ask the federal courts to intervene? What happened to the love of local government there?
Such hypocritical oddities can also be seen in Justice Scalia's bewildering decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the D.C. handgun ban case upon which yesterday's ruling relied. Scalia, ever the "strict constructionalist," loves to consider exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when writing what they wrote. However, he poorly tries to dance around the fact that the opening clause of the Second Amendment lays out the exact purpose for which the founders expected the people to keep and bear arms (which did not include personal protection from home invasion). It's also interesting to consider that, in this case, the right to keep and bear arms was brought in under the Privileges and Immunities Clause (see pages 4 and on)- one which has been an historical enemy of the political right. As we go into the Senate's hearings on Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, it's important to consider just exactly how important a Supreme Court Justice can be and what terribly far-reaching effects their decisions can have.
No comments:
Post a Comment