Tapsearch Com EditorMore on the DC Second Amendment case
March 11th 2007 03:30
My friend Jeremy Lott has a great post up about the new case, criticizing a Washington Post op-ed.
I have three comments to add:
(A) The case in question wasn't an NRA ordeal. In fact, the NRA had a competing case that used arguments in addition to the Second Amendment; a Cato Institute scholar wanted (and got) a strict Second Amendment ruling.
(B) By "almost 70 years of precedent," I'm assuming the Post is referring to U.S. v. Miller (1939). But the paper, like so many left-wing propagandists, willfully distorts the ruling.
In the case, a man sued for the right to own a sawed-off shotgun. As I wrote in Reason: "[T]he Court ruled that a ban on sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Constitution because 'it is not within judicial notice that [such weapons are] any part of the ordinary military equipment or that [their] use could contribute to the common defense.'"
I've actually been criticized on the grounds this is an overly anti-gun interpretation; the court didn't necessarily say such bans don't violate the Constitution, just that there hadn't been enough evidence presented to show they did.
But the important part is this: The ruling doesn't say that the man can't own a sawed-off shotgun because he's not in the militia. It says he can't own a sawed-off shotgun unless he proves such a weapon is "part of the ordinary military equipment" or that its possession "at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." By that logic I can own a nuclear bomb. This says nothing whatsoever about whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
The op-ed is disingenuous about another passage in the ruling, quoting the part about the Second Amendment protecting militias but not worrying about this part:
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
(C) On what basis does the paper claim letting law-abiding people have guns -- to balance out the criminals who already have them -- will increase crime? There are studies it could have cited, but it doesn't bother.
The Washington Post is a major national paper. It's great that it promotes a liberal perspective, but it should do so with actual facts.
By Robert VerBruggen
I have three comments to add:
(A) The case in question wasn't an NRA ordeal. In fact, the NRA had a competing case that used arguments in addition to the Second Amendment; a Cato Institute scholar wanted (and got) a strict Second Amendment ruling.
(B) By "almost 70 years of precedent," I'm assuming the Post is referring to U.S. v. Miller (1939). But the paper, like so many left-wing propagandists, willfully distorts the ruling.
In the case, a man sued for the right to own a sawed-off shotgun. As I wrote in Reason: "[T]he Court ruled that a ban on sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Constitution because 'it is not within judicial notice that [such weapons are] any part of the ordinary military equipment or that [their] use could contribute to the common defense.'"
I've actually been criticized on the grounds this is an overly anti-gun interpretation; the court didn't necessarily say such bans don't violate the Constitution, just that there hadn't been enough evidence presented to show they did.
But the important part is this: The ruling doesn't say that the man can't own a sawed-off shotgun because he's not in the militia. It says he can't own a sawed-off shotgun unless he proves such a weapon is "part of the ordinary military equipment" or that its possession "at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." By that logic I can own a nuclear bomb. This says nothing whatsoever about whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
The op-ed is disingenuous about another passage in the ruling, quoting the part about the Second Amendment protecting militias but not worrying about this part:
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
(C) On what basis does the paper claim letting law-abiding people have guns -- to balance out the criminals who already have them -- will increase crime? There are studies it could have cited, but it doesn't bother.
The Washington Post is a major national paper. It's great that it promotes a liberal perspective, but it should do so with actual facts.
By Robert VerBruggen
| 39 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
