So I'm in a blogging kind of mood...meaning you all have to put up with another blog tonight (suckers). This is the nerd blog because it is focused on McDonald v. City of Chicago, which was just argued in front of the US Supreme Court today. If you are a huge nerd (I mean, huger than me) you can find the transcript of the oral arguments at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf
For the rest of you, a nice synopsis of the case and background can be found here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03scotus.html?ref=us
As I understand the background of the case, the cities of Chicago and Oak Park have banned handguns. Some residents are challenging this ban based on their supposed Second Amendment "right to bear arms." From everything I have read, it seems like the Court is likely to strike down state and local laws that infringe upon an individual's right to bear arms. There are complex and nuanced legal arguments for why the Second Amendment should not apply to state and local laws, but I am not going to even try and tackle those here. If anyone is really interested in chatting those extremely nerdy aspects up with me, send me an email.
Anyways, I just want to make two quick points about the "Guns" question:
1) The text of the Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
When I first came to law school, I did not even know that the first clause of the Amendment existed, and I don't think many others do either. According to my own reading, the entire right to keep and bear arms is contingent on its relationship to a "well regulated militia." Apparently, Justice Breyer is the only one who agrees with my assessment...that's fine though, I always liked him the best anyways.
I would love to hear what others, even non-legal nerds, have to say about this argument or the Second Amendment in general.
2) The NYTimes article mentions that at one point Justice Breyer asked the attorney for the residents whether the ban should be upheld if the City could show that it saved 100 lives a year, and the attorney said the ban should still be struck down. Regardless of any legal arguments, does that make any common sense? Are we naive enough to think that some words on paper, written 200+ years ago, give us a fundamental right to have guns even if it costs 100 people their lives? I can't believe that people would fight for that kind of logic. Obviously, there are those who debate whether gun bans actually save lives...but this hypothetical assumed that the City could show that lives were saved.
The basic question then is are there some constitutional rights that exist regardless of their effect on the lives of others? I am not convinced that we should ever be willing to accept that reasoning.
Ok, in lighter news, US Soccer plays the Netherlands tomorrow on ESPN2 at 1:30pm. It should be a really good tune up for the World Cup. For those who don't know or care, the World Cup starts the second week of June in South Africa. The Netherlands is consistently one of the best teams in the world, and this year is no different. I will be very surprised if the US can get a win, but stranger things have happened.
Let me know if you have any good things to say. I'll be back blogging again sometime soon. The week is almost half over, so praise the lord for that. And, I'm just one day closer to trying the new Lakefront beer...hallelujah.
Jon, I have to say your blog was the highlight of my day. (Of course, I did hours of bookwork, so maybe that's not saying much). I wish I could think of something intelligent to write about, but my brain is fried. Suffice it to say, that I am really enjoying your blogs. They make me think, they make me chuckle.. and I usually learn something. Plus you post good pictures (frittata) in the Yogi blog uhmm..looks good.
ReplyDeleteThese are the same type of people who went out last January and bought boxes and boxes of ammo because they thought Obama was going to take their guns away. As previously mentioned, I think he has more pressing needs on his plate
ReplyDeleteMom, glad you are still reading. But, yes, my blog being the highlight of your day probably needs you need to spice it up a bit...haha
ReplyDeleteYans, there is really no way that Obama or any president can enact any sort of sweeping ban on guns. Politically, it would be stupid right now, and legally, it would probably be struck down in two seconds. I think the biggest issue in the future will be how much government can regulate who gets guns. For example, states have always been able to bar felons from getting guns. More currently, states have enacted tougher registration and licensing laws. The courts seem to be ok with most of these restrictions assuming that the government has some legitimate basis for it. But, I predict that state and local governments will start trying to enact broader restrictions, and then that will probably be the center of the debate.
Also, I think it's important to recognize a difference between handguns, like Chicago's ban, and hunting rifles. Two different items that should be treated differently.
Btw, my lovely and religiously-knowledgeable wife told me that I may have offended someone by using the word "hallelujah" during lent. Upon further research, it appears that about half the Christian world agrees with her, while half does not. If I offended anyone, sorry. In all honestly, I forgot it was even lent...haha. Shows my religious knowledge.
ReplyDeleteDont worry, all. Thanks be to Hollywood and their wonderful invention which is going to save all our lives- the hot tub time machine. Party on!
ReplyDelete