The 2nd Amendment and the 2008 election
Written by Michael Vass
With the impending Presidential election less than 2 months away there are discussions across the nation about issues many Americans hold dear. The media has emphasized some of these issues, like alternative energy, education, and nationalized (standardized) healthcare. But there are other issues that are as important and not nearly as well covered.
The 2nd Amendment provides for the Right to bear arms. Many liberal politicians seek to restrict the scope and definition of this Right. Some conservatives seek to expand it. But to fully understand this Right, as it exists today it is important to understand the laws and Court rulings in place currently that affect it.
One of the most important and recent would be District of Columbia v. Heller. This case dealt with the right of an American citizen to own a handgun, and to be able to have a rifle or shotgun that is owned to be loaded and/or assembled or unbound by a trigger lock. What was also at issue was something not written, whether an individual had a right to arms or was it that only state militias that had this right.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that individuals do have that right, can own handguns, and have the ultimate decision on how that firearm is maintained in their home. Justice Scalia stated
It was further stated that it
“should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
In essence that further supports existing law. The combination of these comments, and this ruling in general, has helped to ensure that the Right to bear arms continues to live as it did when the Constitution was made.
But if some liberals were to have their dreams, then it may have been possible that this landmark decision could have gone 4-5 against. As such ALL Americans would have faced the potential of losing the right to own handguns currently in their possession, and the encroachment of the Government into their homes to ensure compliance.
Of the candidates looking to be elected as either President or Vice President, the most clear proponent of Heller would be Gov. Sarah Palin.
The only other relevant case would be the 1939 United States v. Miller. This case looked at the right of an individual to own various types of firearms, particularly short-barreled rifles and shotguns and fully automatic firearms. What Miller resolved is hard to understand as many interpretations exist.
Perhaps the best answer is this which came from the abovementioned Heller
“Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.”
Whatever the interpretation the Court found in Miller that sawed-off shotguns were not included in the 2nd Amendment. It also made clear that the Government had the right to regulate certain types of firearms, which includes fully automatic firearms.
The ambiguous nature of Miller was purposive. And Heller intentionally did not interfere with it’s ruling.
That is the full breadth of the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment. Considering that Heller was just handed down this year, it will likely be faced with challenges and lawmakers that favor or oppose this ruling. The manner in which the Government reacts to these future challenges, and/or the selection of future members of the Court will rest firmly on the shoulders of our next elected Executives.
Firearms in society: what are we to do?
Written by Michael Vass
Gun laws are part of the world these days. As is the occurrence of people ‘going postal’ or school killings. And the responses to these new threats and outbreaks are as varied as the nations they occur in.
In Canada as a response to the murder of Anastasia De Sousa and injury of 20 other people at Dawson College in 2006, a new law - ANASTASIA’S LAW – has been enacted in Quebec. This law restricts firearms in public transit, and at schools and daycare centers. It requires psychologists and other medical professionals to report people with high-risk behavior and/or gunshot injuries.
In England the fear is their terror in becoming what is perceived as American life
Though their problems are not American imitation as much as the breakdown of social morals that every nation these days faces.
“Playground squabbles are now being settled with guns,” he said. “And drug dealers are taking a policy decision to get youngsters to carry guns.”
But in the U.S. there are some other views.
“Mike got his concealed pistol license about four years ago and carries a .45-caliber Glock (he has a smaller 9 millimeter for when he’s wearing lighter clothes or is in the company of his “anti-gun” relatives). He carried intermittently until the Virginia Tech massacre, in which 32 people died when a gunman shot up classrooms in a building and then killed himself.
“It was then that I realized that you can’t count on help being there when you need it. You’re only guaranteed a chance when you are able to defend yourself,” he said.”
And in at least on school
So which thought is the right one? Which provides the best answer to the public?
Is Canada right in their restrictive measures? But what happens when a criminal or crazed individual does get a firearm, which in England is easy and cheap, and the police are minutes away? What if a teacher, or a responsible trained civilian with a liscenced concealed weapon is right there and able to prevent the wanna-be ganster with a machine gun, or end the threat that could create a Dawson College or Virginia Tech. What if a teacher or school employee is able to stop a Columbine before dozens are injured or killed.
The issues involving firearms are universal in this world. There are always people who want to be a gangster, or are criminals, or deranged. There is no preventing the proliferation of firearms – whether converted, smuggled, or sold legally – in a world where the internet can provide the instructions to convert a fake or rendered safe firearm into a functional weapon.
Blame is a wonderful tool to obfuscate the resolution. Blame movies, or television, or drugs, or cartoons, or American culture. Blame never resolves the issue at hand, nor brings the dead to life. Blame never prevents violence.
So what is the best answer?
Concealed Weapons Permits in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges
Last week, the United States Department of the Interior published a proposed regulation that will align with state laws that allow for concealed weapons permits in national parks and national wildlife refuges, while continuing to maintain important regulatory provisions that ensure visitor safety and resource protection. The Department carefully worked with law enforcement professionals from the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to craft this proposal.
What’s your opinion on this matter?
