Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Misreading the Second Amendment and Miller
The New York Times, reacting swiftly, has an unsigned editorial today saying the Parker case announced last Friday by a D.C. Circuit panel is a terrible case which "must be overturned." Color me not exactly shocked.
The Miller case from 1939 is really the only Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment. It concerned a sawed off shotgun. The question in that case was not whether the Second Amendment gave an individual right to keep and bear arms, the question was whether a short shotgun was the type of weapon a Militiaman would use. Had there been any evidence that it was, then the law banning its possession would clearly have been held unconstitutional, as it had been at the trial court level. The enemies of the Second Amendment mistake the focus of the court in Miller and say it stands for what it doesn't. The New York Times editors continue that mistake. What else is new?
And I really love this last part:
The new decision jeopardizes sound legal precedent and the district's law. It would imperil needed gun controls in place in jurisdictions around the country at a time when violent crime in many places is once again on the rise. (Emphasis added).
As John Lott points out, the main effect of the 1976 gun ban in D.C was to cause murder and robbery to rise sharply. If the gun ban was successful, rather than absolutely counterproductive, I'd be tempted to put up with an unconstitutional law that saved a lot of lives, but an unconstitutional law which causes more violent crime could only be supported by the legal geniuses on the left and at the New York Times. Same dif.
The Miller case from 1939 is really the only Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment. It concerned a sawed off shotgun. The question in that case was not whether the Second Amendment gave an individual right to keep and bear arms, the question was whether a short shotgun was the type of weapon a Militiaman would use. Had there been any evidence that it was, then the law banning its possession would clearly have been held unconstitutional, as it had been at the trial court level. The enemies of the Second Amendment mistake the focus of the court in Miller and say it stands for what it doesn't. The New York Times editors continue that mistake. What else is new?
And I really love this last part:
The new decision jeopardizes sound legal precedent and the district's law. It would imperil needed gun controls in place in jurisdictions around the country at a time when violent crime in many places is once again on the rise. (Emphasis added).
As John Lott points out, the main effect of the 1976 gun ban in D.C was to cause murder and robbery to rise sharply. If the gun ban was successful, rather than absolutely counterproductive, I'd be tempted to put up with an unconstitutional law that saved a lot of lives, but an unconstitutional law which causes more violent crime could only be supported by the legal geniuses on the left and at the New York Times. Same dif.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 5:58 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Yeah, Miller was murdered in prison and no one appeared to argue the case before the Supremes. I've been offered the 'trench broom' M97 Winchester pump used in WWII but I posted a photo about a year ago of our guys in Iraq carrying a Mossberg, so you are making a sound choice,
Post a Comment
<< Home
