Comments for Gun Rights decisions, in the courts, implications of.

Gun Rights decisions, in the courts, implications of.

2007-03-30T14:51:34Z

We mentioned this when it first came out. The Blogfather, Jonah Goldberg of National Review, has a column on it today, that Oldloadr and I thought of interest. You should, of course, read the whole thing.

Considering how badly things have been going for conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans and anyone else whose brain doesn’t explode like one of those guys from the movie Scanners at the thought of another Republican president, it’s worth noting that one of the greatest conservative victories of the last 40 years is quietly unfolding right in front of us. On March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an epochal ruling. The court found that the Second Amendment actually protects the right to bear arms for individuals.

Jonah goes on to observe:

Now, that in and of itself is huge. For decades, the courts, the legal and academic establishments, the press and all right-thinking people everywhere have been arguing that not only is the Second Amendment a chestnut from a bygone age, but that enlightened judges should just go ahead and void the darn thing like a bad parking ticket.

Jonah goes on to chronicle some examples of an unpleasant (to them) truth that some intellectually honest anti-gun liberals are coming to accept - the 2nd Amendment *does* protect an individual right (though I'm sure, deep in their heart of hearts, they hope that if it ever gets to the Supremes, they'll just wave that away).

While Jonah is fine with all that, it's *not* his real point. This is:

Now, you might think this is what I have in mind when I say that the Court of Appeals ruling was an epochal victory for conservatives. But it’s not.
No, the real victory is that liberals are starting to accept the fact that the constitution has a meaning separate and distinct from what the most pliant liberal judge wants it to mean. Therefore, writes Wittes, “perhaps it’s time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the (Second Amendment) actually means something ... For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let’s repeal the damn thing.” Wittes isn’t alone. A number of left-wing commentators have picked up the idea as well.

Personally, I would oppose repeal, and I have problems with many liberal arguments against the Second Amendment. But that liberals are willing to play by the rules is an enormous, monumental victory that transcends the particulars of the gun-control debate.

[emphasis mine]

Personally, I think that Jonah is too optimistic. But I'd like him to be right. Which, based on some levels of political thought, should be sufficient to make it so, no?

Comment from Harvey on 2007-04-01

2007-04-01T15:42:41Z

From "pry it out of my cold, dead hands" to "pry it out of my strictly constructed Constitution" :-)

Comment from BloodSpite on 2007-03-30

2007-03-30T18:42:08Z

I agree. If you wanted to take it to another level you could. How many people out there would take the "Pry it out of my cold dead hands" slogan seriously? If they played tiddlywinks with the Constitution to pull it off? I'm betting quite a few. Your describing something that could be revolutionary, or at the minimum ssplintering in affect not just in politics but in legalities and enforcement. Can you imagine trying to enforce such a decision? Who are you going to get to do it? Gun owning Police Officers? Gun owning National Guardsmen? Gun owning FBI, or ATF agents? And even if you could get someone to do it, would you want to be the Agent who knocks on someone's door to tell them "We want your shotgun"? Shades of Ruby Ridge

Comment from Oldloadr on 2007-03-30

2007-03-30T17:13:05Z

The task for them (gun-haters) to repeal the 2nd: 2/3 of both houses of congress (they don't have that now and without a profound shift away from current trends i.e. red state versus blue state, they are not going to get that). Even if they did, make it through congress, the next hurdle is 3/4 of the several states’ legislatures have to approve by a 2/3 majority. The founding fathers wanted it to be difficult to change what they had wrought... BTW, there is no provision for deleting any part of the constitution. Therefore to “repeal” the second amendment would require another amendment which could go all the way or stop short or who knows what when politicians get at something. J-P’s point is also important. There are many who have had no problem with whittling away at gun freedoms, but who would have doubts (moral, ethical, practical, all of the above) about fiddling with the constitution.

Comment from J-P on 2007-03-30

2007-03-30T16:56:50Z

Repeal the 2nd? Good luck trying. Gun haters would lose a lot of support if they switched from "gun control" to "constitutional gun ban." There are plenty of folks who hate gun violence, but who aren't so hardcore as to think that gun ownership should be denied to everyone. The gun control voting block would splinter into pieces over something like this.

Comment from NevadaDailySteve on 2007-03-30

2007-03-30T16:42:30Z

liberals are willing to play by the rules

Until they decide not to play by the rules. What's the name of those rubber sandals again?

Comment from Barb on 2007-03-30

2007-03-30T16:21:06Z

The thought of a cohesive liberal attack on the 2nd amendment itself is creepy. Then again, the whole 'cohesive' part is where I suspect it would fail.