1) The President has announced his gun reform proposals. Some are pretty sensible and are likely to garner Congressional support. Unfortunately, other proposals are the product of a willful and complete failure to understand A) guns B) gun owners.
First, what's good? Closing background check loopholes seems sensible. As does tougher enforcement of existing laws. However, it is noticeable about how little effort the President has made to address mental health issues. Apart from 'clarifications' on the law, Obama has offered very little. This should be the key, guns do not kill people. People kill people.
What's bad - First, I disagree with a federal assault weapons ban. As I argued for The Week a couple of weeks back (no pun intended), states should take the lead on this particular issue. Having said this, I do not believe that there is a constitutional right to assault weapon possession. Previous statements by Justice Scalia indicate that he would be unlikely to affirm such a right.
Second, and this is my main gripe, the call for a 10 round magazine limit is a serious mistake. In fact, I believe that such a limit is unconstitutional. In the 2008 landmark case of District of Columbia v Heller, the Supreme Court held that civilians have the right to own weapons (including semi-automatic handguns) for the purposes of meaningful self-defense. Overturning DC's previous handgun ban, the court held that ''The (DC law in question) prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for
defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the
standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional
rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to
‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at
400, would fail constitutional muster.'' The court also affirmed that the second amendment protects an individual's right for his or her firearms to be accessible and operational. When combined with the Court's stipulation ''There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home
defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible
in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an
attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength
to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand
while the other hand dials the police.'' it seems evident that the Supreme Court has held a private right not just to gun ownership, but to a gun ownership that provides for a practical and perceptible posture of defense. This understanding illustrates why I believe that Obama's (10) and New York's (7) magazine size limits are unconstitutional. If implemented, they would fundamentally alter nearly all semi-automatic weapons and would do so to a degree which excessively infringed upon established constitutional rights of self-defense. When confronted by a home invader in the middle of the night, an individual is unlikely to employ the highest levels of accuracy. When confronted by a group of home invaders, an excessive magazine limit is inherently and irrefutably precarious. Excessive magazine limits are in fundamental contest with the basic protections of the second amendment.
2) Algeria. AQIM appears to have kidnapped a number of foreign energy workers in Algeria. I expect that the 1st SFOD-D ready-alert ''bowstring'' squadron is already half way across the Atlantic. AQIM would be well advised to release the hostages now. Delta Force doesn't mess around.
3) The French Military is engaged in serious fighting in Mali. French soldiers are well trained professionals and their current tasking is justified and necessary. But because European welfare states have sucked away EU defense spending, European militaries are terribly underfunded. As a result, their ISTAR capabilities have been seriously degraded. As in Libya, once again the US will have to fill in the gaps. EU defense policy is a joke.
Regarding this point
ReplyDeleteSecond, and this is my main gripe, the call for a 10 round magazine limit is a serious mistake. In fact, I believe that such a limit is unconstitutional. In the 2008 landmark case of District of Columbia v Heller, the Supreme Court held that civilians have the right to own weapons (including semi-automatic handguns) for the purposes of meaningful self-defense.
The case of District of Columbia v Heller specifically dealt with guns that were unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device These are clear obstructions when it comes to meaningful protection/selfdefense. However, when it comes to things like magazine size, it becomes too subjective to make a definitive ruling. How can we objectively determine when a magazine size is to small? You might think its 10, I might thinks its 5.
Thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteIt dealt with those weapons in the context of their ability to restrict or provide a basic condition of self defense. Based on the court's explicit assurance of the right to own handguns free from major obstruction - I am venturing that the magazine limit of ten rounds is unconstitutional. It would impact nearly every handgun weapon platform and it would have a clear and negative impact on self defense. For me, 10 rounds is so low a limit and this proposal so encompassing in reach that it cannot conform with Heller.
I think we (generally) agree on the opinion of the court, which you summarized quite well
ReplyDeleteIt dealt with those weapons in the context of their ability to restrict or provide a basic condition of self defense.
However, within that context, it dealt with specific laws that it considered to be major obstructions. In this case, laws about guns that were unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Again, these are clear obstructions to what the court defined as "meaningful protection". These actively impede a gun owner from using their gun in a high risk situation, like a robbery or break in.
However, with magazine size limits, things get a little tricky. These limits don't necessarily directly impede a gun owner from using their gun. They (can) certainly lower the number of bullets fire, but they don't actively prevent a gun user from using their gun. I think this is beyond the scope of Heller.
I suppose the question is: Where is the imposition occurring? At the gun itself... or at the gun as a tool for an end. For me, there is little difference between a trigger lock and a 10 round limit. Both are obstacles to the productive use of the weapon.
DeleteI see a certain contradiction between the idea that there is no constitutional right to possessing an "assault weapon", while restricting magazine capacity would presumably not pass the constitutional muster.
ReplyDeleteExcept for cosmetics, a typical "assault weapon" is just a semi-automatic rifle, although some machine pistols also tend to be included in this category. It would seems to follow that if a State can limit possession of assault weapons in general, it can limit possession of any kind of semi-automatic rifle. In that case, handguns would remain the only semi-automatic weapons allowed for self-defense. Does that make sense?
I think the basic problem here is, what constitutes an assault weapon? There doesn't seem to be a clear definition that everyone can agree upon. Can we further define the term? I feel as though a typical "assault weapon" is just a semi-automatic rifle. , is just too broad. This creates too much controversy when creating legislation. It reminds me of the word "terrorism". There are hundreds different of definitions, but no real standard that everyone can agree upon. This also creates problems when analyzing the effects of terrorizing.
DeleteSome interesting Supreme Court cases lie ahead!
DeleteAlexy1214, when I said that a "typical "assault weapon" is just a semi-automatic rifle", I meant that among the restrictions on assault weapons that are or had been actual law (at the Federal level from 1994 to 2004, in the State of CA, NY, and several others presently), one large category that is banned are semi-automatic rifles with a specified number of "military features". Something like Ruger Mini-14 ranch model is a semi-automatic rifle without military features that is not banned. It functionality, however, is essentially the same as that of an AR-15.
ReplyDeleteSo, if "assault weapon" type semi-automatic rifles can be banned, it would seem logical that some day the semi-automatic rifles without any military characteristics could be banned as well, if they end up being substituted in crimes in place of the "assault rifles". And at that point, a whole class of firearms, semi-automatic rifles, will be banned. Would that be consistent with the 2nd Amendment? My guess is that the courts may let such bans stand, but as Tom says, there may be some interesting litigation there. Handguns may be a bit more protected at this point since they were specifically addressed by a Supreme court decision, although even then, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the future after the Supreme Court loses its conservative majority.
Sorry this post got a bit long, but anyway ...
Interesting points. Thanks a lot for your comments.
DeleteThank you for clearing up the definition, at least in legal terms, of what constitutes an "assault weapon".
DeleteI agree with you that the current definition is too broad (which can lead to major issues). But is it not possible to reach some sort of middle ground when it comes to further defining an "assault weapon", so it doesn't create so much ambiguity and grey area? In that sense, I believe this is a slippery slope that could be fixed. I also think many people, particular pundits, conflate "assault weapon" with "assault rifle" (Although the is not always the case), two very different terms.
But hey, I can't predict the future and your warnings in some sense are definitely warranted, especially after Sandy Hook. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
larouchepac dot com ---- can save you time. A huge amount of the gun violence here in America comes from drug dealing and drug use. Guess who is behind the drug trafficking here. It's the British Royal Family, the same people ( the Queen ) who put Obama into the White House. The Queen wants the Second Amendment nullified. Also see larouchepac dot com/1932 and larouchepub dot com. You won't see this info in the British-controlled "news" media here and across the pond.
ReplyDelete". . . because European welfare states have sucked away EU defense spending, European militaries are terribly underfunded."
ReplyDeleteBritain is among the most generous welfare providers in Europe, and also has one of the most well-funded and best equipped militaries. Try again.
Try again. The British military is woefully underfunded. It lacks meaningful logistics capability for high intensity operations, it lacks adequate ISTAR capabilities, it has insufficient force capacity - no aircraft carriers for example.
DeleteIt has two important features - well trained personnel and a historic legacy. But that doesn't change reality.