Thursday, June 26, 2008

Annie Getcher Gun

The question is did Obama flip-flop on his position on the right to bear arms in the case of the District of Columbia law that prohibited handguns. The answer is that based on his prior statements that this was constitutional law, yes he did.

But not so fast.

"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." Second Amendment of the US Constitution

Try to find the bit that says individuals have the right to own guns.

Try to find the bit that says a State or municipality can't pass laws about the kinds and types of arms that an individual can bear.

Try to find the bit that says this applies to women as well as men.

Try to find the bit that says a felon can't bear arms.

Try to find the bit that says deranged lunatics can't bear arms.

Try to find the bit that elaborates individual vs States rights.

Obama's statement that the new Supreme Court ruling striking down the DC law is useful guidance is correct. The Court did its job. Trying to determine if this makes sense in an era of ubiquitous unregistered Uzis and Glocks is an altogether different problem. That is the essence of Obama's dilemma or really any thinking person with an understanding of the implications of open borders and a society with a wide chasm between haves and have nots.

Understanding constitutional law is not the problem. Understanding the role of the executive in context of the oath of office in real world events is.

Guidance is not always given and there isn't enough time to ask for it in some situations. Caveat emptor.

No comments:

Comment Policy

If you don't sign it, I won't post it. To quote an ancient source: "All your private property is target for your enemy. And your enemy is me."