Tapsearch Com EditorMore on the gun case: The dissent
March 11th 2007 15:06
Yesterday I pointed out that the case U.S. v. Miller, though often taken as a collective-right interpretation of the Second Amendment, actually addressed only the gun. The entire decision does not even mention that the individual was not in a militia -- only that the gun he had, a sawed-off shotgun, had not been shown to be a militia weapon.
John Lott points to the dissent in the new case, which posits an interesting interpretation of U.S. v. Miller: Even if the Second Amendment protects militia weapons, the Miller court said the Second Amendment must be interpreted with the preservation of the state militias -- at the time of the Founding, all white male residents -- in mind. DC is not a state, so its residents don't have that right.
A thought-provoking take, to be sure. And once again it's fascinating that there's no mention of the fact the guy is not in a militia.
Though I'm not sure we want to take any more constitutional rights away from DC residents; they already have "taxation without representation."
Lott also questions the wisdom of bringing the case right now:
"This is actually a very high risk gamble. IF the gun ban is struck down, it will have major implications. If not, no gun regulation will be deemed 'unreasonable.'"
By Robert VerBruggen
John Lott points to the dissent in the new case, which posits an interesting interpretation of U.S. v. Miller: Even if the Second Amendment protects militia weapons, the Miller court said the Second Amendment must be interpreted with the preservation of the state militias -- at the time of the Founding, all white male residents -- in mind. DC is not a state, so its residents don't have that right.
A thought-provoking take, to be sure. And once again it's fascinating that there's no mention of the fact the guy is not in a militia.
Though I'm not sure we want to take any more constitutional rights away from DC residents; they already have "taxation without representation."
Lott also questions the wisdom of bringing the case right now:
"This is actually a very high risk gamble. IF the gun ban is struck down, it will have major implications. If not, no gun regulation will be deemed 'unreasonable.'"
By Robert VerBruggen
| 38 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
