Friday, June 27, 2008

You're the SUPREME Court

Gun Control is not really a Pittsburgh issue, I'm aware. However, it is an issue that I feel very strongly about. First, a couple disclaimers:

  1. I am FOR hunting. I would feel squeamish about killing an animal, but if you don't, then go ahead.
  2. I am FOR gun collecting. I collect cigars and scotch whiskey and I spend a lot of time grumbling about the laws that prevent me from easily expanding those collections.
  3. I think you can EITHER protect yourself and your family by keeping a gun loaded and under your pillow OR keep your kids from blowing their fingers off by using a trigger lock and storing the ammo in another room. You can't do both and almost everyone is better off with the later.
  4. You can't possibly claim to be safer with a gun if you're not trained to use it. We have drivers ed and a test to pass, why not with guns?
  5. Countries that don't allow hand gun laws are SAFER, there's no disputing it, check the crime stats.

Ok, those are just the disclaimers. The real point of this post is this quote from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

I'm not a legal scholar, but it seems to me that there's an article of the constitution that gives the Supreme court the power to do just that. They can read the amendment, say, "Sorry buddy, this amendment is for militias and you aren't in one." If that's not the role of the Supreme Court, then whose role is it?

This is just a thought, but I wonder if a state (or district) were to pass a law that said, "You can't own a hand gun unless you're in a well-regulated militia." Then make a rule that a well regulated militia is by definition an organization that trains one weekend a month and two full weeks a year, has ranks and has uniforms. Wouldn't it be difficult to declare such a law unconstitutional since it would mimic the language of the constitutional.

1 comment:

Burgher Jon said...

Noticed an interesting post over at The Conversation about how this decision impacts the presidential election.