Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Does this make sense?

Despite the apparent victory for freedom in Parker v. DC, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has introduced S. 1001, titled "A bill to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia." This bill would repeal the district's insanely restrictive firearm legislation, which (judging from the extreme levels of violent crime in the city) has been not only draconian, but utterly ineffective, as well.

While this would seem to be a good idea, the reality may not be so simple. What Parker v. DC has to offer American gun owners is the distinct possibility that it will reach the Supreme Court. There it will hopefully lead, for the first time ever, to a definitive SCOTUS ruling on whether the right protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, or a mythical "collective right" (the civilian disarmament crowd likes to tout the United States v. Miller ruling of 1939 as having already decided that issue on the "collective right" side, but the individual right vs. "collective right" issue was never addressed in that case).

However, if DC's insanity is struck down by legislative means before the Supreme Court has a chance to hear and rule on Parker v. DC, the reason for hearing the case disappears, and those of us who do not live in Washington DC have gained nothing. Although introduced only two days ago, the bill already has 41 cosponsors. Perhaps more puzzlingly, the NRA seems to be applauding this development.

Perhaps the NRA has a good reason for pushing this--perhaps there is reason to be doubtful of a favorable outcome in the Supreme Court at this time, and the NRA believes the gun rights movement would be best served by biding its time.

On the other hand, perhaps, as some have claimed, the NRA would rather retain its wealth and power, by continuing to be seen fighting the battle against gun legislation, rather than risk losing that importance by winning the battle.


AlanDP said...

The NRA has already demonstrated that they will try to derail any possibility of such an absolute decision. Right now the biggest question is: why?

I'm sure the answer has something to do with politics and money, and very little to do with protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

Anonymous said...

I agree with your position that a SCOTUS ruling would be the most favorable, I think this fight has to be fought on many fronts. It is too important to put our eggs all in one basket because SCOTUS has not given me any confidence that they would uphold the ruling. Also, there is no guarantee Senator Hutchinson bill will be passed either.

me said...

Interesting that the NRA uses this the Senate legislation seeks to restore the constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights of the residents of the District of Columbia by repealing the District’s onerous gun ban.

I seem to remember someone saying something like "All Laws Which Are Repugnant to The Constitution Are Null And Void" Given that, what's the point in passing a law repealing an unconstitutional one, it's already NOT law.

Anyone think Webb's publicity stunt the night before was possibly timed to give a reason for this law? It really looks like they don't want it to go to the supremes.

As for why the NRA would try to derail it, profiteering comes to mind.

Anonymous said...