Gun rights in the news
I've been busy, so I haven't yet written anything about the U.S. Court of Appeals striking down D.C.'s restrictive gun ban. Also, I didn't have much to say about it other than, "It's about time."
Until recently, I think there was a hesitancy on both sides to address the Second Amendment directly in a court of law. Both sides feared that the outcome could easily be worse than the comfortable, legal ambiguity we've all become accustomed to.
But I think that's changing. I think the lay of the land has so dramatically shifted in favor of individual gun rights (as opposed to this "collective right" nonsense) that it's time to settle the issue once and for all. Now that D.C.'s taken care of, can someone please bring a similar suit against New York or New Jersey or any of the handful of other laggard states that are still bringing up the rear on our Second Amendment rights?
Comments
Do you own a gun(s)?
Posted by: fred | March 14, 2007 11:31 AM
Ha ha, that's funny. Asking a southerner whether he owns a gun is like asking him whether he owns a cooler. Or asking a New Yorker whether he owns a... I don't know, a... bagel... thing. Something.
Posted by: BNJ | March 14, 2007 11:51 AM
In Michigan, anyone who isn't a felon or a psycho can take a gun safety course and get a concealed carry permit. At least we got something right here in the People's Republic.
Posted by: Paul Moore | March 15, 2007 02:24 AM
That's the way it should be everywhere, Paul.
Gun bans aren't directed at criminals. In NYC one of the very FEW people ever charged with "illegal possession of a firearm" was Bernard Goetz (most likely a few store owners round out that list), while violent thugs are rarely charged with that.
So, in effect, such bans amount to a ban on the Natural Right to violent self-defense.
Posted by: JMK | March 15, 2007 09:04 AM
Bernard Goetz is a true American hero.
All of his "victims" went on to rape, rob, murder, and traffic in drugs -- except the one he paralysed.
The only tragedy was that he didn't kill them all. Next time, point blank in the back of the head, Bernard.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | March 15, 2007 04:46 PM
You're right, at least right up until that last sentence BH.
You really don't want citizens conducting public executions under any circumstances.
The government botched the Goetz case.
Goetz was a victim of four thugs, who fought back.
Of course Goetz was his own worst enemy. They had absolutely no leads on this guy when he turned himself in (understandable), BUT serving himself up on a silver platter with lines like, "I walked up to the last guy and said, you don't look so bad, here's another."
He needed to keep his mouth shut, the more he spoke the more of a jerk he looked like.
Still, that said, I don't know if I would've even supported charging Goetz with "reckless endangerment," for firing a gun in a crowded subway car, which he was guilty of.
Goetz had every right to defend himself. His only mistake was not realizing that the cops interviewing him weren't his "friends." The less he said to them, the better off he'd have been.
You're certainly right that EVERY one of those four thugs was far more a "danger to society" than Goetz ever was...and that, as much as anything, demonstrates the folly of gun control.
Posted by: JMK | March 15, 2007 05:23 PM
If he had properly executed them all they could not have continued to rape, rob, and traffic in drugs. Also, it would have saved us all the high cost of their lifelong incarceration.
If you ever must use your firearm on some scumbag, make sure you kill them.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | March 16, 2007 10:45 AM