| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Parker v. DC Might Mean |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 5/9/07 5:05:05 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An anti-gun Californian, regarding Parker v. DC
Cavala is ignoring what it means for possession of firearms to be an individual right. You have the right to free speech, and the right to vote. We can't regulate who is allowed to vote and we can't "license" free speech. What makes him think that Parker v. DC would allow that? Regardless of the argument for Parker's ability to obtain a licensed handgun, the opinion states that gun ownership is the right of every law-abiding citizen (actually, it doesn't mention "law-abiding", but since it is generally accepted that felons can be denied the right to vote, it follows that they can be denied other rights as well.)
This is simply a poorly though-out article by someone who really has no grasp of the situation. Cavala clearly knows nothing about guns, because he whole-heartedly supports "assault weapons" bans which we all know does nothing to prevent crime. What is worse is his incorrect interpretation of the Miller ruling. He's drawing out a judgment that the opinion does not state. Nobody really feels that Miller interpreted the Second Amendment, it was simply a ruling on a particular case involving whether an individual was allowed to have a sawed-off shotgun. Clearly this line of thought is what fuels anti-gun liberals. Pulling meaning out of thin air... The beauty of the Supreme Court is that they say what they mean to say, and don't say what they don't. If you try to read between the lines, it will be purely your own imagination.
I'm hopeful that the Parker case will have a good outcome, but as I've said before, the Supreme Court likes to rule very narrowly. In all likelihood, the Parker ruling will be upheld, meaning a flat-out ban on private ownership firearms will be officially unconstitutional. However, that doesn't mean that the ruling will stop restrictions, registration, etc. Therefore, equally strict laws will be able to be passed, as long as there is some process by which an individual may practice their right. I think it is a step in the right direction, but we still need to lobby Congress and our state legislatures to stop passing bad legislation and hopefully to repeal other restrictive legislation.
Another thought on this matter: supposing Parker gets a cert from SCOTUS, making it undeniable that every citizen has the right to own and use firearms, what would that mean to the gun-registry and license arguments? The biggest argument by gun-rights folks is that a registry is a slippery slope towards gun confiscations. I personally believe that even if Parker is upheld, mandatory licensing, or a registry is dangerous to our rights. The founding fathers would undoubtedly agree. That being said, this may give anti-gunners more fuel to push for registrations, saying "stop whining, you know we can't take your guns away now."
I hope the NRA is circling up the wagons, and getting ready for what could easily explode into an all-out political war. Aside from their normal pressure on politicians, they need to have their lawyers playing the upcoming chess game before it hits the press.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | [Comments are closed after a month.] |
| | < "Say No to Guns Day" | | "El Cheapo Gun Porn!" > |
|
|
|
|
