Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Supreme Court Says 2nd Amendment is Restricted

The Supreme Court yesterday affirmed federal efforts to bar those convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.

Will the NRA now take to the streets demanding that wife-beaters have an unrestricted right to guns?

After all, you do not lose your First Amendment rights after you beat someone. Why should you lose your Second Amendment rights?

And will civil rights groups now take to the streets to protest the outrageous discrimination which says hitting a spouse in the face is a worse crime than hitting a random stranger in the face?

Aren't all people equal before the law?

Or will (Heaven forbid!) common sense step in?


Chas S. Clifton said...

The larger question is whether restoration of civil rights to felons who have completed a sentence includes gun rights.

Is a felon re-admitted to society, or is s/he always a lesser sort of citizen?

PBurns said...

Yes! Good question!

The answer, of course, is that voting and gun licensing are done by state law. What is wrong here is that this Second Amendment restriction is a Federal Law. And yet the NRA is silent about that, and in its silence is acquiescence to the notion that the Second Amendment is a restricted individual right at the Federal level. I.e. it is an individual right, but it is a right that can be taken away, not just at the state level, but at the Federal level as well. Not true for the First Amendment. And, of course, we already have the notion that the Feds can control what gun you own. Every try to buy a machine gun or bazooka? It's possible, but "some restrictions may apply." And where is the NRA protest about that?


Chas S. Clifton said...

A follow-up. Maybe Nancy Pelosi has more sense than Holder.

Or at least raw political cunning.

Thanks, by the way, for the tip on Michael Perry's Population: 485.

I found a copy today in the city in that big building where they let you take the books.

WV: Tursingu. Manchurian tribe sent to collective farms by Mao Tse-Tung.