Predictably, the gun lobby is prepared now to try to shoot down limitations imposed on weapons ownership by Chicago and some of its suburbs. Their limits are similar to those the supreme court struck down more than a year ago in the District of Columbia, but that decision was based on the District's status as a federal district; the case in Chicago would apply the Court's nullification to state and local governments as well.
We shouldn't be sidetracked by the supposed falling out between the Libertarian Party and the National Rifle Association who are arguing the case (mentioned, and almost certainly exaggerated, in an article today in the Washington Post). Both these groups, regardless of their differences over the legal grounding, are completely against any control.
A truly conservative court - one that wanted to honor the letter of the Constitution - would not even take the Chicago case after reading the actual wording of the Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That's pretty clear, especially if we keep in mind the historical context. Most Second Amendment fans like to leave out the annoying first half, but there it is:
- First, the right to bear arms exists in the context of a "well-regulated" militia, so regulation is embedded in the document itself.
- Second, all of this is in the context of the security of a free State, so you folks who want to "protect your loved ones," or to go hunting, just don't have a dog in this fight.
- Third and finally, the word "state" is very important, since the Founders envisioned the union as a collection of states, and the term is used consistently in the Constitution to refer to one of the constituent states of the union (NOT the union itself). Clearly, the states do have authority to regulate the militia and anyone who might wish to become a part of it, which puts a big hole in the Libertarian/NRA case coming before the court now.
Q.E.D. An informed, commonsense citizen can easily see that the court would never annul Chicago's regulations. But I don't think that will be the outcome. I take for granted that the court's decision will be to find a reason to declare the Chicago laws unconstitutional. The NRA is not a lobbying group for gun owners, it's a lobbying group for the gun manufacturers, who find gun owners useful as their tools (as in politics, lies and exaggerations help them a lot in this endeavor). And any doubt as to where the Roberts court stands when a big business is involved should have been dispelled by their decision on corporate political advertising.
Comments