Your tax dollars are now going to be spent on gun cases
The Supreme Court's decision today to overturn 69 years of case law on gun issues was not really a surprise, given its down the middle voting record. They went for something kind of middle of the road, weaselly really: they claim that the individual has a right to bear arms, but that it's somehow not an absolute right; the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.This ambiguity is inviting a boatload of challenges from anybody facing a gun charge in any jurisdiction across the country. When the Bush administration started throwing around the theory that the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own any gun they wanted, the New York Times covered how defense lawyers immediately took up the cause, clogging the courts with Second Amendment challenges. Even the most hardened members of groups like Gun Owners of America, which thinks the NRA is weak, may pause before wiping out every weaponry law. Do we want felons owning machine guns? If the court had suddenly decided that the right to bear arms was both individual and absolute, imagine what would happen to our entire justice system?
I'm not going to get into debating the Second Amendment. I could write a book on the subject. And have. I do think the the justices, while giving in to the idea of individual right to gun ownership, also gave into reasonable regulation of guns. The justices write that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." Then they say that other courts have already decided it's OK to ban carrying guns, bringing guns to school or "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." While other rights only have small restrictions (you can't cry fire in a crowded theater, etc.), the restrictions they're putting on the right to bear arms are pretty large. Imagine if they thought the same way about religion (The government might say Catholicism was okay, but snake-handling was going too far.) The decision might be the right one for a political compromise and might even reflect the ambivalence we feel as a country, but if you're running a state or local government, you better get ready to spend some money defending your gun laws.
Recent Posts
- More Black Friday news: Kohl's is the lastest to promise steep discounts (11/21/2008)
- On Sunday, Dr Pepper gives America a free soda...thanks to Axl Rose (11/21/2008)
- Now's another good time to sell your gold (11/21/2008)
- Oprah does 'favorite things' on the cheap, even with freebies (11/21/2008)
- Open Book: Alison Rogers on how the real estate market has changed, and what you can do about it (11/21/2008)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-26-2008 @ 12:31PM
Tracy Coenen said...
States don't have to spend tax money defending gun laws. All they have to do is abide by our Constitution, and there won't be cases defending the laws that violate the Constitution. Problem solved!
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 11:55AM
Erwos said...
Wouldn't these be state, county, and city challenges? In that case, my own tax dollars are really going to only go to challenges in Maryland or Montgomery County. We do have fairly restrictive laws (why can't I get a concealed carry permit?), but I don't think we'll see the sort of epic fights like we would in, say, Chicago.
6-27-2008 @ 2:35PM
Phil L. said...
Maryland (I'm in Howard county) has some interesting gun laws. Nothing like Chicago, but perhaps something that will generate interest in light of the Heller ruling.
Yes, we taxpayers are footing the bill for this. But, of course, this sort of thing is going on all the time. Many legal rulings don't create as many headlines as this one does, but still result in the daily interplay of law and suit as the system lumbers ahead.
Carol -
The Amazon writeup for your book is interesting - but c'mon, things like "America has more licensed gun dealers than gas stations" doesn't help enlighten anyone.
Surely this cherry-picked statistic includes Type 3 "Curio and Relic" licenses. As I understand it, virtually all folks who hold only this license really are vintage collectors, who have discovered this easily-obtained license lets them buy antiques directly from wholesalers. Your Civil War buff neighbor likely has a Type 3 license. The Type 3 license is very restricted; holders aren't considered FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealers, and can't engage in the business of regularly selling Curio and Relic firearms.
If you're going to count them as "gun dealers", you should count those with a can of gasoline in their garage as "gas stations."
Reply
9-08-2008 @ 4:32PM
bob said...
uhhhh
While I don't want felons with machine guns I will advise that criminals do not have a criminal master plan or handshake wherein they throw in with evil to defeat good.
For instance, had a drug dealer been in a VT classroom the day of the shooting, he wouldn't have wanted to get shot and would have shot Cho. His "goals" matched my goals. Criminals want to ply their trade with relative peace, harmony and stability.
Think on that.
Reply