What's next for the 2nd amendment?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Little-Acorn, May 17, 2007.

  1. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,381
    Thanks Received:
    2,028
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,883
    It's a vexing question for today's liberals. In their battle to maintain the fiction that government "gun control" is legal, they are faced with a difficult choice. Do they fight the limited judicial decision that it's illegal in one small area, and so risk having the truth come out in a national venue? Or do they give up and try to limit their loss to that one small area, for the sake of their agenda of infringing on the rights of all Americans to have a say in their own fate?

    This is not a good time to be a modern liberal.

    --------------------------------------------------------

    http://thehill.com/op-eds/consider-whats-next-for-the-second-amendment-2007-05-15.html

    Consider what’s next for the Second Amendment

    By Robert A. Levy
    May 16, 2007

    Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) has the Second Amendment in his crosshairs. He faces a crucial choice over the next 90 days with major implications for residents in D.C. and across the country: Should the city ask the Supreme Court to review Parker v. District of Columbia, a March 9 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals that said D.C.’s handgun ban is unconstitutional? On May 8, the city lost round two when the appellate court declined to re-hear the case. That leaves the Supremes as the court of last resort.

    Sounds like a no-brainer. After all, the city has nothing to lose. If the Supreme Court overrules the appellate court, the mayor will be off the hook. He can continue peddling his fantasy world in which the city’s handgun ban protects Washingtonians from gun violence. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court affirms the lower court decision, D.C. will be no worse off than it would have been if it hadn’t asked for review. The handgun ban, as it now stands, will be history.

    Why, then, is there any question about seeking review? Well, because politics and legal stratagems often play a role. On the political front, the argument will go like this: The last thing the mayor’s Democratic friends want is a gun control case percolating at the Supreme Court, with a decision likely in the heat of the ’08 campaign. Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats and red meat for Republicans. Accordingly, the mayor will be advised, take your medicine, change D.C.’s gun laws and keep Parker out of the Supreme Court. One would hope — if one were a D.C. resident who supported the handgun ban — that such blandishments would fall on deaf ears. The mayor is supposed to represent the city, not the pols running the ’08 campaign. We’ll soon see.

    Then there’s the legal strategy argument: No doubt some anti-gun groups will urge the mayor not to seek Supreme Court review because D.C. might lose. And if D.C. lost, the repercussions for gun control regulations nationwide could be historic. Because of the tightly balanced cast of justices, and their unknown views on the Second Amendment, there’s a real risk for both sides. Still, the obligation of D.C.’s mayor is to defend the constitutionality of the District’s laws, not to engage in strategic lawyering because of concerns outside of Washington. What would the mayor’s constituents — we are told by D.C. officials that a large majority favor the current ban — say if Mayor Fenty opted to rein in the District’s gun laws without a Supreme Court fight because interests in New York, California, Illinois and Massachusetts were at stake?

    Indeed, if the mayor wants to consider what he perceives as the national interest, then he should consider this: No matter what D.C. does legislatively about its gun ban, unless the Supreme Court overturns Parker, the District will be the best venue to challenge federal gun laws, regardless where they are applied. The federal government lives in D.C., and that’s where citizens will seek redress — taking advantage of the holding in Parker — whenever federal laws trample on gun owners’ rights in any of the states.

    Understandably, because I’m co-counsel to the plaintiffs in Parker, the mayor might be reluctant to accept my advice on this matter. But here’s the interesting sidebar: The question whether to seek Supreme Court review is one subject where the city’s interests and the Parker plaintiffs’ interests converge. For the mayor, it’s a no-lose proposition. Either he wins at the Supreme Court or he faces the same music that he’d face without court review. For the plaintiffs, it’s always been their ultimate goal to have the high court weigh in, for the first time since 1939, on this threshold Second Amendment dispute: Does the right to keep and bear arms belong to us as individuals, or does the Constitution merely recognize the collective right of states to arm the members of their militias?

    So, Mr. Mayor, it’s time to do the right thing. The citizens of D.C. — indeed, all Americans — deserve a foursquare pronouncement from the nation’s highest court on the real meaning of the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court is, and rightly should be, the final word on that question. Let’s give the court an opportunity to rule, and give the rest of us the benefit of the court’s collective judgment on a debate that concerns millions of Americans.
     
  2. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,381
    Thanks Received:
    2,028
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,883
    I have one disagreement with the article. Actually, the Second Amendment has the Mayor in ITS crosshairs.

    Historical ramifications aside, one of the most interesting results of the Supreme Court finding the DC gun ban unconstitutional (if they do), would be to see what happens to the horrific crime rates that now exist in the city.

    So far we've had a city full of irrresponsible criminals who don't give a rat's ass about the gun ban, preying on mostly law-abiding people who do obey it. So the criminals have had little to fear in terms of getting injured or killed by an unwilling victim. The result has been some of the highest crime rates in the nation.

    If the gun ban is found unconstitutional by the Supremes and tossed out, residents will then be able to stop relying solely on the cops for protection - a theory that has manifestly failed - and try a different theory. They will be able to defend themselves if they choose to do so. They will once again have the right to buy a gun, and the responsibility of careful and safe usage of a potentially deadly weapon.

    Will the murder rate, home-invasion rate, carjacking rate, assault rate, and rape frequency go up, or down, when the gun ban is tossed out? Will the introduction of weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens, produce more "OK Corral" style gunfights as those citizens behave irresponsibly with their weapons? Or will they be mostly responsible and careful... while the criminals start coming to the conclusion that they are now taking more risks by assaulting victims who now may be armed...and so they decide to ply their trade elsewhere, or not at all?
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,580
    Thanks Received:
    5,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,000
    The overwhelming historical answer to that in the US is crime will go down and there will be no "OK Corral" shoot outs between law abiding citizens.
     
  4. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    It is also reasonable to conclude that gun accidents will go up.
     
  5. Ninja
    Offline

    Ninja Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Thanks Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Glorious People's Republic of California
    Ratings:
    +377
    Come on, Fenty - take it to SCOTUS you fucking coward.

    Make my day, bitch.
     

Share This Page