Wednesday, March 19, 2008

SCOTUS, militia, self-defense

Listening to DC v Heller today was a better civics/history lesson on who we are as a people than I received in public school. The lawyers went back to the English Common Law and the English Bill of Rights from 1699. From all reports the Justices are doing their own research because of lack of judicial review in the case.

The thing that bugged me is that we were founded as a nation of rifleman and the complete lack of knowledge of firearms from all three lawyers and most of the Justices. The problem with triggerlocks is the middle of the night scenario where a bad guy breaks in and you have an adrenaline dump affecting your fine motor skills. There are biometric safes that are fairly inexpensive and if I had kids would be one of the ways I'd go about securing a firearm at night.

During the build up to the case there has been a lot of talk from white rich liberals complaining about the 'all powerful evil' NRA. I'm becoming more and more convinced that elite liberals hate the common man no matter what they look like whether it's if we send our money to the NRA or shop at Wal-Mart or like french fries with our burgers.

I know it's a hard concept for those that believe if we just sit around a campfire and sing kumbah that we will all just get along or even the sheer arrogance thinking that in spite of the 28,000 gun laws (actually there are that many) that a criminal will obey the next one.

Despite some of the arguments that were given, machineguns aren't banned they are regulated under the NFA of 1934, although, if some of the Justices get hung up on the militia clause the NFA act of 1934 could go away (Shoot, I really want a Thompson). The brady campaign's guy saying if Heller's position is victorious this will be an assault weapon against all gun laws, well I hope so but a .30-06 round is more effective than the .223.

As far as the reasonableness of the prohibition of sidearms in the district. The District lawyer stated that a rifle or a shotgun could be used. That maybe true to a certain extent, but the problem is anything over .223 is going to go through the next to houses, a bolt action is to slow, and doubt a semi-auto rifle is legal in the District. From a tactical stand point a rifle or shotgun is harder to clear a house (which should only be done if there are other family members that aren't in the room with you and a bad guy is running around)because there is more of a chance that a bad guy could grab the barrel and take it away, with a pistol there are weapon retention tactics that are fairly easy to do.

Unlike Mr. Heller's attorney I do have a problem with licencing. The right to bear arms is a right not a privilege like driving. I do believe those that carry, shoot for the fun of it, or even just collect should know how to use and be proficient. There is something that is particularly onerous about the idea of licencing when the government can't even keep track of their own firearms. While I don't want criminals or crazy people to have firearms, I do worry about the government trying to pass some impossible standard that would effectively cause law abiding citizens. I listened to one brady say that those that want to own should sacrifice our Fourth Amendment rights...I wish I could have asked him if he was pro-abortion, and if he was I'd like to know what he thinks of a 24 hr cooling off period (abortion of course being a non-existent Constitutional right that SCOTUS invented). We don't licence our other rights, nor do we do background checks for the privilege of driving. When there are politicians that want to give drivers licences to illegal aliens it is disgusting to us law abiding gun owners that we have to go through a background check at every purchase.

All this been said I am a little nervous how this is going to play out because those that are afraid of inanimate objects won't quit trying to ban them IF DC looses and it will just embolden them if DC does win. But there is something wrong when law abiding citizens have to suffer at the hands of criminals when the mayor is well-protected and doesn't have to live in a bad neighborhood.

2 comments:

Ron Simpson said...

Good post. I agree, the SCOTUS ruling on this makes me nervous. If the libs get their way, our rights will go the way of England's and Australia's

Randolphus Maximus said...

I'm thinking that if we were to truly get to the "original" meaning of the 2nd Amendment, even registration programs for firearms would be unconstitutional. Really, what if you need to defend yourself from the the government?

A firearms registration program seems to me to be a roadmap for the government to tell them where all the guns are. Seriously.