One of the primary gun control arguments made is that the 2008 Supreme Court decision of D.C. vs Heller allows for "reasonable regulation" and that "dangerous and unusual weapons" can be outlawed. Justice Scalia does say this in the ruling, but it was not written with the meaning that the gun control proponents seem to think it means. The problem with the Gun Control Complex is that they themselves like to be the arbiters of what constitutes "reasonable" gun control and what constitute "dangerous and unusual" weapons. Generally, this means any and all gun control that they wish for, and so long as they leave you with one gun that you have to jump through all sorts of hoops to obtain, with one round, then they are protecting your right to keep and bear arms. Of course, this mindset applied to any of the other rights protected in the Bill of Rights would never hold up in a court. No one would claim with a straight face that the protection against unreasonable search and seizure, for example, means that the government can conduct any and all search and seizure that it pleases, and so long as it doesn't completely search and seize every single thing that you own, that this thus fits the definition of reasonable search and seizure.
No, to infringe on any of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights, the government has to have a really severe reason to do so, and then can only do so within a very narrow scope. The same should apply with regards to the Second Amendment. So what constitutes reasonable regulation under the Second? Well the Second Amendment I do not believe prohibits the government from implementing restrictions on for example violent criminals and the mentally ill from legally possessing arms (rapists, murderers, actual terrorists, mentally ill (as in found mentally ill in a court of law), etc...). But it does not at all mean that the government has the authority to engage in things like magazine capacity restrictions, so-called "assault weapons" bans, and so forth.
No comments:
Post a Comment