It's not often that a headline makes me sit up straighter and take notice. Sure, some make we want to read the story more than others, but actual focused attention is something else entirely. However, that threshold was crossed yesterday when I saw this headline on CNN:
Gun Sales Surge After Obama's Election
Boy, if that doesn't get your attention, what will?
It turns out that people are buying all sorts of guns because they think that with a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, the Second Amendment is not long for the world, at least as it stands now. Never mind that Obama says that he's in favor of the personal right to bear arms. After all, this is the guy who said that bitter people cling to guns. And religion.
It's amazing the amount of distrust that people have for their government actually doing what they say they'll do. Obama says that he's not against guns and that it's a low priority for him anyway (he kept talking about the economy or something like that). However, people who really like their guns (cling to them, some might say) don't trust the words and go out to stock up.
The gun shop owners love it. Does this count as Obama stimulating the economy?
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Stay Away from Harrold
The New York Times was reporting yesterday that today might be the day that Obama announces his pick for vice president. Of course, other papers were saying Friday and everyone is looking for something to talk about whether it's true or not. It's just the way the 24 hour news cycle goes during the dead month of August. So we'll see what happens. I'm not exactly holding my breath on this one.
Also, is anyone else ready for August to be over? It's like a news wasteland. Bring on the action.
In the meantime, I have to point your attention to the small town of Harrold, Texas, which, starting this month, will allow their teachers to bring concealed firearms to school. That's right. Guns and schools, together at last. After all, nothing limits violence quite like having more guns around.
Maybe I'm getting used to the liberal, eastern, latte-sipping lifestyle but that's just nuts. Admittedly, there were more than a few points during my career as a middle school teacher that I can't say I really would have minded having a concealed firearm handy, but that's probably an argument against letting me have one.
I mean, here in New York there are people upset because the NYPD runs the school safety officers and they worry about that.
According to school superintendent David Thweatt, "When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that's when all of these shootings started."
Wait. When were schools not gun-free? I love these lone ranger types who stand up to the federal government for freedom and safety by doing things like putting guns in classrooms with children.
Anyway, the takeaway from all this is that August is boring and don't send your kids to school in Harrold, Texas.
Also, is anyone else ready for August to be over? It's like a news wasteland. Bring on the action.
In the meantime, I have to point your attention to the small town of Harrold, Texas, which, starting this month, will allow their teachers to bring concealed firearms to school. That's right. Guns and schools, together at last. After all, nothing limits violence quite like having more guns around.
Maybe I'm getting used to the liberal, eastern, latte-sipping lifestyle but that's just nuts. Admittedly, there were more than a few points during my career as a middle school teacher that I can't say I really would have minded having a concealed firearm handy, but that's probably an argument against letting me have one.
I mean, here in New York there are people upset because the NYPD runs the school safety officers and they worry about that.
According to school superintendent David Thweatt, "When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that's when all of these shootings started."
Wait. When were schools not gun-free? I love these lone ranger types who stand up to the federal government for freedom and safety by doing things like putting guns in classrooms with children.
Anyway, the takeaway from all this is that August is boring and don't send your kids to school in Harrold, Texas.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Guns and Abortion
Despite loudly proclaiming his belief in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has just written the majority opinion in a case that miraculously discovers rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Incredible!
In District of Columbia v. Heller the Court ruled that individuals have the right to bear arms. This had been a bit of a Constitutional sticking point over the years because the second amendment seems to tie that right to the need to have a "well-regulated militia." However, the Court has chosen to interpret that clause pretty broadly and say that it applies to individuals who never have and never will serve in any sort of militia, well-regulated or otherwise. Slate's Timoth Noah also writes that in the process, Justice Scalia discovered the right to convenience.
On Constitutional matters, I know just enough to sound like I know what I'm talking about, but I'm hardly John Marshall. As such, I can't say that I know how the Constitution should be interpreted to suit modern times. What is clear to me though, is that you can't simultaneously argue for a strict construction of the Constitution, argue that there should be no recognized right to privacy (the basis for the decision in Roe v. Wade), and say that the Constitution guarantees the rights of individuals to carry handguns despite it not saying that in the document itself.
This case may be a strike against gun control laws in DC and elsewhere. But the next time a privacy case comes up, Scalia's writing in Heller may prove to be a pretty good tool.
In District of Columbia v. Heller the Court ruled that individuals have the right to bear arms. This had been a bit of a Constitutional sticking point over the years because the second amendment seems to tie that right to the need to have a "well-regulated militia." However, the Court has chosen to interpret that clause pretty broadly and say that it applies to individuals who never have and never will serve in any sort of militia, well-regulated or otherwise. Slate's Timoth Noah also writes that in the process, Justice Scalia discovered the right to convenience.
On Constitutional matters, I know just enough to sound like I know what I'm talking about, but I'm hardly John Marshall. As such, I can't say that I know how the Constitution should be interpreted to suit modern times. What is clear to me though, is that you can't simultaneously argue for a strict construction of the Constitution, argue that there should be no recognized right to privacy (the basis for the decision in Roe v. Wade), and say that the Constitution guarantees the rights of individuals to carry handguns despite it not saying that in the document itself.
This case may be a strike against gun control laws in DC and elsewhere. But the next time a privacy case comes up, Scalia's writing in Heller may prove to be a pretty good tool.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Penumbras, Guns, and Abortion
A lot more than gun rights may be at stake when the Supreme Court hears arguments today in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. The case immediately at hand is whether or not Washington, D.C.'s ban on individual gun ownership is legal or if the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to bear arms.
A quick walk down Constitution lane. As it was written by the Founding Fathers, the second amendment says, "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.'' So, in the Constitution, the right to bear arms is explicitly tied to the formation and existence of a well regulated militia. Clearly, random people owning handguns in their homes is not a well regulated militia. As such, D.C. says that it has not violated any Constitutional rights by banning individual weapons. The argument goes that there is a collective, not individual, right to have a gun. Clearly, others (the NRA being foremost among them) disagree. And that brings us to the lawsuit before the court today.
There's been a lot of writing about how the court hasn't really heard a gun rights case in 69 years and how the second amendment has never been comprehensively interpreted. And in that sense, this could be a big case. However, I want to know how this case applies to abortion rights.
Pretty much since the day that Roe v. Wade was issued, it's been attacked for inventing rights that don't exist in the Constitution. (Technically, this isn't accurate. The right to privacy was actually invented in the case Griswold v. Connecticut. But that's not really the point here.) Strict constructionist judges (think Scalia) say that we need to look at what the Constitution really says and that it's not the role of judges to go around saying what should be in there or not. This sparks an elaborate argument that I won't go into just now. However, keep in mind that the position usually staked out by the conservative justices is one of strict construction that shuns the so-called "penumbras" of implied rights that "emanate" from the explicit rights laid out in the Constitution.
And yet, now in order to find an individual right to bear arms unconnected with a well regulated militia, the court would have to find a conservative version of those very penumbras that gave us the right to privacy. A strict reading of the Constitution would lead us to think that the right to bear arms is tied to the existence of a well regulated militia. Absent that, the Constitution is silent. That being the case, states have the power to make their own decisions on the matter (thank you tenth amendment) and the D.C. ban should be valid. However, if there is an implied right for individuals to own guns (say, from the second, ninth, and fourteenth amendments) then why could there not also be an implied right to privacy, and with it, the right to have an abortion?
While the arguments will be held today, we won't get the decision for months yet. And my guess is that when we do hear the court's ruling, it will follow the O'Connor model of a narrowly written opinion that doesn't address the sweeping issues at stake. But maybe it will. And if it does, it will be very interesting to see what the court thinks.
A quick walk down Constitution lane. As it was written by the Founding Fathers, the second amendment says, "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.'' So, in the Constitution, the right to bear arms is explicitly tied to the formation and existence of a well regulated militia. Clearly, random people owning handguns in their homes is not a well regulated militia. As such, D.C. says that it has not violated any Constitutional rights by banning individual weapons. The argument goes that there is a collective, not individual, right to have a gun. Clearly, others (the NRA being foremost among them) disagree. And that brings us to the lawsuit before the court today.
There's been a lot of writing about how the court hasn't really heard a gun rights case in 69 years and how the second amendment has never been comprehensively interpreted. And in that sense, this could be a big case. However, I want to know how this case applies to abortion rights.
Pretty much since the day that Roe v. Wade was issued, it's been attacked for inventing rights that don't exist in the Constitution. (Technically, this isn't accurate. The right to privacy was actually invented in the case Griswold v. Connecticut. But that's not really the point here.) Strict constructionist judges (think Scalia) say that we need to look at what the Constitution really says and that it's not the role of judges to go around saying what should be in there or not. This sparks an elaborate argument that I won't go into just now. However, keep in mind that the position usually staked out by the conservative justices is one of strict construction that shuns the so-called "penumbras" of implied rights that "emanate" from the explicit rights laid out in the Constitution.
And yet, now in order to find an individual right to bear arms unconnected with a well regulated militia, the court would have to find a conservative version of those very penumbras that gave us the right to privacy. A strict reading of the Constitution would lead us to think that the right to bear arms is tied to the existence of a well regulated militia. Absent that, the Constitution is silent. That being the case, states have the power to make their own decisions on the matter (thank you tenth amendment) and the D.C. ban should be valid. However, if there is an implied right for individuals to own guns (say, from the second, ninth, and fourteenth amendments) then why could there not also be an implied right to privacy, and with it, the right to have an abortion?
While the arguments will be held today, we won't get the decision for months yet. And my guess is that when we do hear the court's ruling, it will follow the O'Connor model of a narrowly written opinion that doesn't address the sweeping issues at stake. But maybe it will. And if it does, it will be very interesting to see what the court thinks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
