Courtesy of Arms and the Law and the Washington Times is this article about the DC council considering the possibility of changing the law to allow DC residents to possess guns in the wake of the overturning of the DC gun ban.
In trolling around various gun rights blogs, there is concern that a change in the law in DC would be a drastic negative. By doing so, it would have the possibility of derailing appeals to the Supreme Court should an en banc hearing by the full DC circuit overturn the original Parker ruling. If the law is changed to allow legal gun ownership in the District, it kind of makes the whole appeal process moot.
Fortunately, I don't believe the DC council is crafty enough to actually pull their heads free from a certain dark orifice and do something that far-reaching (despite being in their interests, looking at the long-term). Also, I feel if there is a change in the law, it would be, as the article mentions, little more than an amnesty to roll back the restrictions just enough to skirt under the Parker decision without really changing the status quo long term.
In a previous post, I allude to the dangers of government licensing of gun ownership and I believe the DC Council would do everything in their power to make legal gun ownership as onerous as possible within the District. The alternative of having DC residents in control of their own safety and lives is simply too horrifying for them to contemplate. Can't have the riff-raff, gasp, owning guns and exercising personal responsibility! Oh no!
Many gun rights advocates, myself included, would like to see Parker vs. DC heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court. The reason is simple: We want a firm decision, once and for all, that tells us how the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens. Other rights advocates are nervous for the same reason because there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would uphold an individual rights view.
I share in that nervousness. But at the same time, the prospect of the SCOTUS saying the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals is worth it. If they do without dancing around the issue, it will serve as the wedge we need to begin to start rolling back 70 plus years of gun control regulation. It may take a generation to undo the damage but I feel an encompassing ruling of individual rights by the Supreme Court would dramatically change the landscape of America for the better.
It is because of that possibility that gun control groups like the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center are getting truckload orders of adult Depends delivered to them. If the SCOTUS upholds an individual rights view it will destroy their agenda nationwide. The prospect of Parker reaching the Supreme Court with any chance of a ruling for individual rights, quite literally, scares the shit out of them.
As a result, the best thing that could happen for the gun controllers and banners to keep Parker from reaching the Supreme Court. And the DC Council could make it happen by changing the law to deny standing to the Parker plantiffs, especially if the Council feels the decision would be overturned before reaching the Supreme Court. I don't see it happening thanks to the elitist mindset that pervades the DC Council but it is a possibility. Or the decision is upheld by the Circuit and they change the law to prevent it from reaching the high court.
If it didn't make it to the high court, the powermongers, nanny statists and gun banners would breathe a sigh of relief and then a year later, crank the restrictions back into place to stay just below the threshold of Parker. Status quo, away we go.
What I don't think they realize (or maybe they do, I'm not a lawyer) is that if Parker stands without review by the Supreme Court, the damage to the gun control movement remains.
It remains because as an upheld decision, it becomes precedent that can be used and quoted elsewhere. A Federal court upholding an individual rights view of the 2nd Amendment unequivocably (which Parker does) is a powerful weapon in the battle to combat gun control in places like Illinois, New jersey, New York and Massachussets. Sure, the courts can try to sidestep Parker (and other cases like it. The Ninth Circuit is really good at doing that) but more and more, it will play a role in rolling back gun control. It may be slow, grinding and lengthy, but it will happen. Just the prospect of such is enough to scare politicians way outside of DC. We see it and I know people like Bloomberg and Daley see it too.
I don't want to see Parker derailed. At a minimum, I want to see it stand and upheld even if it never reaches the Supreme Court. A couple more rulings like it in other Circuits would spell the end of the "collective rights" view of the 2nd Amendment. With enough precedent on our side, gun control groups, for all practical purposes, would have the same standing as NAMBLA in the eyes of politicians at every level. Gun owners have been villified for so long I would love to see the shoe on the other foot.
As a result, the gun control groups should be grabbing the DC Council members by the shoulders and trying to yank their heads free before it is too late. I think they see the danger to their cause in the bigger, long-term picture. They have to find a way to stop it before it is too late.
I have faith though. Faith that politicians are often blind due to their own ambition and addiction to power.
Especially when your eyes are full of crap.
I'm going to enjoy this for as long as I can.
In trolling around various gun rights blogs, there is concern that a change in the law in DC would be a drastic negative. By doing so, it would have the possibility of derailing appeals to the Supreme Court should an en banc hearing by the full DC circuit overturn the original Parker ruling. If the law is changed to allow legal gun ownership in the District, it kind of makes the whole appeal process moot.
Fortunately, I don't believe the DC council is crafty enough to actually pull their heads free from a certain dark orifice and do something that far-reaching (despite being in their interests, looking at the long-term). Also, I feel if there is a change in the law, it would be, as the article mentions, little more than an amnesty to roll back the restrictions just enough to skirt under the Parker decision without really changing the status quo long term.
In a previous post, I allude to the dangers of government licensing of gun ownership and I believe the DC Council would do everything in their power to make legal gun ownership as onerous as possible within the District. The alternative of having DC residents in control of their own safety and lives is simply too horrifying for them to contemplate. Can't have the riff-raff, gasp, owning guns and exercising personal responsibility! Oh no!
Many gun rights advocates, myself included, would like to see Parker vs. DC heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court. The reason is simple: We want a firm decision, once and for all, that tells us how the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens. Other rights advocates are nervous for the same reason because there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would uphold an individual rights view.
I share in that nervousness. But at the same time, the prospect of the SCOTUS saying the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals is worth it. If they do without dancing around the issue, it will serve as the wedge we need to begin to start rolling back 70 plus years of gun control regulation. It may take a generation to undo the damage but I feel an encompassing ruling of individual rights by the Supreme Court would dramatically change the landscape of America for the better.
It is because of that possibility that gun control groups like the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center are getting truckload orders of adult Depends delivered to them. If the SCOTUS upholds an individual rights view it will destroy their agenda nationwide. The prospect of Parker reaching the Supreme Court with any chance of a ruling for individual rights, quite literally, scares the shit out of them.
As a result, the best thing that could happen for the gun controllers and banners to keep Parker from reaching the Supreme Court. And the DC Council could make it happen by changing the law to deny standing to the Parker plantiffs, especially if the Council feels the decision would be overturned before reaching the Supreme Court. I don't see it happening thanks to the elitist mindset that pervades the DC Council but it is a possibility. Or the decision is upheld by the Circuit and they change the law to prevent it from reaching the high court.
If it didn't make it to the high court, the powermongers, nanny statists and gun banners would breathe a sigh of relief and then a year later, crank the restrictions back into place to stay just below the threshold of Parker. Status quo, away we go.
What I don't think they realize (or maybe they do, I'm not a lawyer) is that if Parker stands without review by the Supreme Court, the damage to the gun control movement remains.
It remains because as an upheld decision, it becomes precedent that can be used and quoted elsewhere. A Federal court upholding an individual rights view of the 2nd Amendment unequivocably (which Parker does) is a powerful weapon in the battle to combat gun control in places like Illinois, New jersey, New York and Massachussets. Sure, the courts can try to sidestep Parker (and other cases like it. The Ninth Circuit is really good at doing that) but more and more, it will play a role in rolling back gun control. It may be slow, grinding and lengthy, but it will happen. Just the prospect of such is enough to scare politicians way outside of DC. We see it and I know people like Bloomberg and Daley see it too.
I don't want to see Parker derailed. At a minimum, I want to see it stand and upheld even if it never reaches the Supreme Court. A couple more rulings like it in other Circuits would spell the end of the "collective rights" view of the 2nd Amendment. With enough precedent on our side, gun control groups, for all practical purposes, would have the same standing as NAMBLA in the eyes of politicians at every level. Gun owners have been villified for so long I would love to see the shoe on the other foot.
As a result, the gun control groups should be grabbing the DC Council members by the shoulders and trying to yank their heads free before it is too late. I think they see the danger to their cause in the bigger, long-term picture. They have to find a way to stop it before it is too late.
I have faith though. Faith that politicians are often blind due to their own ambition and addiction to power.
Especially when your eyes are full of crap.
I'm going to enjoy this for as long as I can.
0 comments:
Post a Comment