|
BitaTruble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 1:31:10 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cloudboy
But where does a gun proponent draw the line? Suppose you insisted you had the right to carry it into you college classrooms, or into courtrooms and airplanes, etc.
Where exactly does one circumscribe the Second Amendment?
I'd like to take a shot at answering these questions because they're very valid and pertinent to the discussion.
I guess the easiest thing would be to say that I draw the line at the laws within a given state as long as those laws don't violate the constitution itself. As an example, if a state made a law against burning the American flag, that would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Having a law which says you can't make a fire in a public square does not violate the constitution. So, if you burned a flag in a public square, the law which is violated is burning something in a public square, not burning the flag. It doesn't matter 'what' you burned, it's the fact that you burned something in violation of the law.
The same, I think, holds true for owning a gun. For a state to ban owning a gun is a violation of the 2nd amendment. For a state to ban for example, firing a gun within city limits is not a violation of the constitution and such a law should be adhered to and any violation of that law should dealt with in an appropriate manner as determined by the state which enacted the law. Again, that manner (the consequence of violating that law) cannot violate the constitution.
Gun laws which don't violate the constitution are, generally, going to be okay and most gun proponents are going to abide by those laws. I think the framers were very wise in some of the cross-check statutes which they put into place and for those sorts of things to be overturned or amended is going to take wiser men still than the framers. I don't think it's going to be a very easy task to find groups of such men. Now, that may make it seem like I think America is full of dummies, but that's not the case. What we are full of is a people who are 'used' to having our liberty. We didn't have to scratch and claw for what we've got, the framers did that for us and I think it gave them a unique perspective that you would be hard pressed to find in this country today. Our job, as citizens of this country, is to make sure their hard work is not lightly displaced but even so, the framers were very careful to ensure there was a process set for future generations should the need arise. Is the fact that felons can't 'keep and bear arms' a violation of the constitution? No, it's not because there is within the constitution itself the answer to that question which is, a felon is no longer protected by the constitution.
The other issues which you mentioned aren't really covered by the constitution because the constitution applies to state laws and the powers of the federal government. A class on gun safety may very well allow you to take your gun with you. Many states allow judges to carry concealed weapons in a courtroom and air marshalls often have weapons on airplanes.
I think the difference boils down to one of choice. You have the choice whether or not to meet the criteria of a given public access point. If you don't want to meet the criteria (do not bring a weapon here) then don't go or suffer the due process of the law. Your home, though, and a law which bans one from the ability to keep and bear arms in their own place of residence does violate Article II because you have no choice but to go home (which is the basic nutshell version of the Heller case).
Just one more thing when you really don't have a choice which is being summoned for jury duty. By law, you have to attend to jury duty. Since you have no choice, does that mean you are entitled to carry your gun into the courtroom or does that mean any law in place which prevents you from carrying a gun into a courtroom is in violation of the 2nd amendment?
I'll leave that one to the Supreme court to figure out. [;)]
Celeste
|
|
|
|
