You can hear audio here on read a transcript here.
There are a couple interesting points about the arguments.
The DC lawyer tried to claim that the second amendment only applied to citizens who are part of an organized state militia. This is despite the fact that the amendment recognizes the "right of the people". He claimed that the clause stating "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" negates this.
But the militia are the people. Founding Father George Mason said
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.Tenche Coxe stated
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.The DC lawyer also argued that handguns could be banned because long guns are sufficient for self defence. The DC law also requires that long guns be disassembled or trigger locked and bans carrying them from room to room. The DC lawyer claimed that they didn't really mean it and wouldn't enforce it that way. That must be very reassuring to DC gun owners.
But are long guns sufficient for self defence? Long guns certainly have some advantages such as more power and better accuracy. But what if you only have one arm? What if you aren't strong enough to hold a long gun steady? What if you can't walk fast enough to retrieve it? Don't such people have the right to defend their lives with a gun?
Similar to a question Justice Scalia asked, is it OK to ban one book if another says something similar?
One interesting side note is that Justice Souter, whose questions put him on the anti-gun side, was mugged in Washington DC in 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment