So, this month the topic is gun rights and the Heller decision from both a legal and practical standpoint. Hmmm.
Let me start off by saying that while the Clarence Thomas supporter and I disagree on a lot of things, this topic is one we actually agree on. I haven’t read his opinion yet, so let me qualify that statement, as authors of concurring opinions often do: I can’t say for sure that I agree with his reasoning, but I do agree with his main point – the Heller court definitely got it right. However, I wouldn’t be doing my job if I just agreed with him. I must argue the counterpoint.
From a legal standpoint, irrespective of the Heller majority opinion, it could be argued that the Framers really did not intend for the Second Amendment to apply to individuals. In his dissent, Justice Stevens did what Justice Scalia loves to do and looked to what the Framers’ intentions were when they drafted the Amendment. But unlike Scalia, Stevens reached the conclusion that because the Framers did not expressly include an individual’s right component, the Second Amendment was not intended to extend that far. Furthermore, as Justice Breyer pointed out in his dissent, the right afforded by the Second Amendment is not absolute. In fact, as the majority in Heller concedes, the government retains the right to regulate weapons in this country.
This leads me into the dissent’s argument that the Heller court was incorrect from a practical standpoint. I will admit up front that it would be quite foolish of me to rely on the argument “people don’t kill people, guns kill people” – as I’m sure the Clarence Thomas supporter will point out. First of all, that argument is indisputably pathetic, period! Second of all, I know this may be hard for some of you to believe, but if you ever made me mad enough, I could probably use my foot instead of a gun to, “kick you through the goal posts of life,” as one of my loved ones likes to say. In other words, guns aren’t necessary to get the job done.
So instead, I will rely on Justice Breyer’s “public safety” and “interest-balancing” arguments. I think it’s clear that gun-control laws exist primarily in the interest of public safety. Despite what I said in my last paragraph, guns are in fact responsible for a number of deaths and injuries each year in this country. Now why would the Framers create a guaranteed right in the Constitution to keep loaded weapons handy in already crime-ridden areas? Surely they wouldn’t.
And under Breyer’s proposed interest-balancing approach, the interests protected by the Second Amendment should be weighed against the government’s interest in protecting the public and preventing crime. The District of Columbia – and of course the other 49 states – has a compelling interest in, and should be allowed to take the necessary actions to, reduce its ridiculously high crime rate, which includes eliminating a big source of its violent crime rate, to wit, deadly weapons. It just makes sense to allow the government to regulate and take control of something that can be, and has been, so devastating to way too many Americans.
So in conclusion, I would like to leave you with one final thought: Although the Heller court stated that handguns should be allowed for the purpose of self-defense, I think those Justices would find it very difficult to argue that the murder rate in D.C. would somehow magically disappear because of criminals’ fear that all potential victims of crimes are armed and dangerous themselves. And even so, that’s just more people potentially using deadly weapons in an area that could use less of that type of activity. So instead of adding to the problem, why not just take it away?
Teranni is a 3L and can be reached at forum@valpo.edu.
Entries (RSS)