Moody Amphitheater
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
RECEIVED Mon., June 30, 2008
Dear Louis,
A salute to you and your June 27 “Page Two,” “Unreasonably Reasonable.” Even the gun-control groups now use “reasonable” and “common sense” to describe their regulations du jour.
Liberals should be thankful for the Heller majority; had the Supremes been as “liberal” minded on the subject of expanding individual rights as courts past, they would have instructed in detail where D.C. could file their post-Jim Crow ordinances. But the ruling was limited – and reasonable.
The future battle against local/state measures denying the individual right to keep and bear arms should be quite a show. See! the fierce 2A lobby change strategies from legislation to litigation (the NRA initially opposed suing D.C.). Marvel! as the Supremes deal with the 14th Amendment and incorporation.
Ironic that the 14th (1868), the most powerful and storied tool of “liberal” civil rights over the last half century, was written largely to ensure the rights of newly freed slaves to keep and bear arms when confronting Southern state militia bent on suppressing blacks. Kinda takes the shine off the “militia clause.”
Some technical notes: the average deer rifle fires “cop-killer bullets” if we mean thereby a bullet’s ability to penetrate body armor. And “powerful automatic weapons” are already under strict regulation, held only by a few hundred thousand civilians. On the other hand, the semi-auto medium-power carbine (AR-15, AK-47 clone, SKS) is owned by an estimated 12 million to 15 million Americans. The largest-selling center-fire arm-type in the U.S. is now the dominant class seen on the rifle range. Politically, this is a huge, motivated constituency.
Second Amendment advocates have a special place in their hearts for Vermont’s “gun laws,” the thinnest gruel found in the whole debate. Huge crime rate there (wink).
A salute to you and your June 27 “Page Two,” “Unreasonably Reasonable.” Even the gun-control groups now use “reasonable” and “common sense” to describe their regulations du jour.
Liberals should be thankful for the Heller majority; had the Supremes been as “liberal” minded on the subject of expanding individual rights as courts past, they would have instructed in detail where D.C. could file their post-Jim Crow ordinances. But the ruling was limited – and reasonable.
The future battle against local/state measures denying the individual right to keep and bear arms should be quite a show. See! the fierce 2A lobby change strategies from legislation to litigation (the NRA initially opposed suing D.C.). Marvel! as the Supremes deal with the 14th Amendment and incorporation.
Ironic that the 14th (1868), the most powerful and storied tool of “liberal” civil rights over the last half century, was written largely to ensure the rights of newly freed slaves to keep and bear arms when confronting Southern state militia bent on suppressing blacks. Kinda takes the shine off the “militia clause.”
Some technical notes: the average deer rifle fires “cop-killer bullets” if we mean thereby a bullet’s ability to penetrate body armor. And “powerful automatic weapons” are already under strict regulation, held only by a few hundred thousand civilians. On the other hand, the semi-auto medium-power carbine (AR-15, AK-47 clone, SKS) is owned by an estimated 12 million to 15 million Americans. The largest-selling center-fire arm-type in the U.S. is now the dominant class seen on the rifle range. Politically, this is a huge, motivated constituency.
Second Amendment advocates have a special place in their hearts for Vermont’s “gun laws,” the thinnest gruel found in the whole debate. Huge crime rate there (wink).
Sincerely,
Stephen W. McGuire
Stephen W. McGuire
