Watch this video to the end, in which Lawrence Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation reacts to Rudy Giuliani's recent speech to the National Rifle Association, and in which he agrees that (gasp) Hillary Clinton has been less insulting and less patronizing to gun owners than Rudy Giuliani has been.
Amazing. But I guess Mr. Keane is in a pretty good position to know who has been pissing on his leg for the last decade.
And, apparently, it wasn't Hillary.
Why is this a big deal? Simple: the U.S. Supreme Court has just decided to examine one of the most disputed provisions of the Constitution – the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The specific question is whether a Washington, D.C.-law that bans the use or possession of all handguns is constitutional. This is the very kind of gun law that Rudy Giuliani has championed for New York City.
Now, to be fair, Rudy is not completely crazy. The central question is whether "time, place, and manner" restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. A close reading of the Constitution suggests that they probably can. Of course, a close reading of the Constitution also suggests that they probably cannot.
To tell the truth, the Second Amendment is a linguistic mess. It means whatever you want it to mean.
"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."
That's the entire language.
Now here's a question: Is the right to bear arms reserved to a "well-regulated militia" (i.e. the National Guard), or is "the right of the people" a right without apparent restriction or qualification, the same as the First Amendment as written in the U.S. Constitution?
Who knows? All we know for sure at this point is that the Supreme Court will have another crack at it.
In truth, gun cases are very rarely brought to the Supreme Court because both sides are terrified of losing. For all their bluster, neither Sarah Brady nor the National Rifle Association are all that cock-sure and confident about the legality of their absolutist positions.
Look at the Second Amendment again. The term "gun" is never used. The word that is used is "arms."
Is the Second Amendment a full-employment act for prosthetic arms makers, or perhaps a repair order for the "Venus de Milo"?
Probably not. But assuming "arms" actually means weapons, does it mean any weapon can be carried by anyone anywhere?
If so, can a baby have a fully loaded Colt Python? Can kids bring machetes to school? Why is it OK for the State of Virginia to ban gun ownership by crazy people (like the Virginia Tech shooter) and felons? Why can't terrorists carry guns (or even bombs) on to an airplane? After all, the right of free speech (the First Amendment) is not a restricted right. Why should the Second Amendment be?
But, of course, if it's not a restricted right, odd questions may arise. For example, can I bring my fully-loaded bazooka to the U.S. Capitol and use my Leupold scope (I just welded it to the barrel last week) to check out the detail on the statue of "Freedom" located at the top of the dome?
And why not? Is the Second Amendment unrestricted, or not?
So why is Supreme Court action on this gun case such political dynamite? Simple: The Supremes will hand down their decision in late June of 2008 – four months before voters go to the polls to elect a new President.
During the run-up to the Supreme Court decision -- and for months afterwards -- the gun issue will be white hot.
And that's not a good thing for Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, as it exposes their weakest flanks.
Of course, guns are not a strong issue for Democrats either.
But the blow-back for Democrats is not as likely to be as severe. The reason for this is that the folks who tend to vote Democrat are comfortable with the "nuanced" position that folks like Hillary, Obama, Giuliani and Romney have tried to carve out on the Second Amendment.
Not so, many conservatives and gun enthusiasts who see the Second Amendment as a simple litmus test. For these folks, Republican candidates who offer only tepid support for gun owners (and who may also flip-flop like a carp on a boat deck on other conservative social issues), may give them very little reason to go to the polls.
Add into the mix the fact that Giuliani is weak on immigration (see Giuluini video below) and that Mitt Romney appears to be the political equivalent of a cross-dresser, and a lot of Republicans are left wondering why the GOP is even holding a convention at all.
New York City? Massachusetts? These are the Republican candidates for President? Good Lord!
No comments:
Post a Comment