GEOFF SCHUMACHER: Court settles narrow issue in gun debate - Opinion

SAVE THIS

EMAIL THIS Print

PRINT THIS Popular

POST A COMMENT

Jul. 06, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

GEOFF SCHUMACHER: Court settles narrow issue in gun debate

GEOFF SCHUMACHER
MORE COLUMNS

First of all, I want a pat on the back. I sat down last week with a copy of the U.S. Supreme Court's gun control ruling and read the entire thing: 157 printed pages, including the majority opinion, two dissents and all the footnotes.

This is not exactly literature we're talking about. District of Columbia vs. Heller doesn't grip your attention like a good thriller or engage your brain like great literature. It's a series of convoluted legal arguments, although the justice who wrote the majority opinion, Antonin Scalia, did throw in a couple of Lewis Carroll references.

Most Popular Stories

EDITORIAL: If only we could tax more

LETTERS: With economists like these, who needs enemies?

LETTERS: Brace yourself for coming tax hikes

LETTERS: Nuclear power could be the answer for Nevada

J.C. WATTS: Sonia Sotomayor and bootstraps

EDITORIAL: Firemen's pensions past due for reform

EDITORIAL: Education 'consultants'

EDITORIAL: Internet sales taxes

EDITORIAL: Hoe, hoe, hoe

LETTERS: So now you're in favor of regulation, eh?

What I found most interesting about the 5-4 decision is how low we've apparently set the bar for "historic" or "monumental," as the ruling repeatedly has been described. Don't be fooled. In fact, the Supreme Court ruling is far from life-changing stuff.

The ruling does clarify a long-disputed legal point: Does the Second Amendment apply to individual Americans or only to members of a "well regulated militia"?

Gun control advocates have argued that the amendment's right to "keep and bear arms" applies only to members of a militia -- a volunteer military organization common in the colonial era. If this is indeed the case, then local, state and federal governments could enact laws precluding individuals from owning firearms.

But Scalia argued that the Second Amendment does apply to individual Americans. In other words, the majority opinion concurred with what most Americans and an overwhelming majority of government jurisdictions have long understood to be the law.

The ruling may have a feel-good effect for pro-gun people, but it should not be characterized as "monumental," because Scalia, perhaps pulling his punches to secure a majority vote, failed to take the ruling any further. On the contrary, he said that most gun regulation -- aka gun control -- is just fine and dandy.

This aspect of the ruling is worth quoting at some length:

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

As a result, the high court ruling applies only to laws that dictate an all-encompassing ban on handgun ownership. This affects Washington, D.C., where the case originated, as well as Chicago and San Francisco. It basically has no effect anywhere else in the country, and certainly not in Nevada.

Delving into the majority opinion and the two dissents, I was struck by a few things:

-- Neither Scalia nor the dissenters, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, had much of a historical record to work with. Except for a few references here and there, the Supreme Court had not really confronted the meat of the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. It's kind of amazing when you think of how emotionally charged the gun issue has been over the years.

This left the justices scrounging up material from sources outside the court record, such as English law, state constitutions and legal commentaries. Both sides found sentences, phrases and historical precedents to bolster their cases, but little of it could be called persuasive.

-- The unusual degree of ambiguity exhibited by the Founding Fathers in the wording of the Second Amendment continues to confound. Today, we honor men such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams for their clarity and eloquence on so many issues, but boy, they really botched the Second Amendment. If they meant for individuals to have the right to keep and bear arms, why didn't they just say so? If they meant for only militias to pack heat, why not make it plain? Jeez.

-- Despite the ruling's narrow scope, it is likely to embolden pro-gun forces to try to knock down other regulations. Justice Breyer warns as much in his dissent, fearing scores of legal challenges across the country. If Scalia means what he says in this ruling, the challenges will not be successful, but the effect nonetheless is going to be more work for lawyers and the clogged courts.

The net result of the ruling is negligible. Despite cries of alarm from politicians such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, the decision is not likely to dramatically increase gun violence in cities. Gun violence was already out of control in Washington, D.C., and Chicago when they had handgun bans in effect. Criminals, it seems, aren't deterred much by such ordinances. And it's worth noting that the ruling doesn't deter police agencies from doing more to fight illegal gun sales and possession.

The bigger point, though, is that regardless of whether predictions of more urban gun violence are correct, the Second Amendment does not allow bans such as those enacted. The cities have to deal with the issue as best they can short of taking this extreme action.

Gun registration, background checks and other regulations will remain in effect in most parts of the country, and thankfully so. Short of a ban, we must do everything we can to regulate the distribution of guns, especially those such as handguns commonly used in the commission of violent crime.

Alternatively, we should enact the Chris Rock policy, which would allow people to have as many guns as they want but pay $5,000 per bullet.

"If a bullet cost $5,000, there's be no more innocent bystanders," the comedian says. "People would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost $5,000."

I wonder what Justice Scalia has to say about that?

Geoff Schumacher (gschumacher@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of Las Vegas CityLife, an alternative newsweekly owned by the same company as the Review-Journal. He also is the author of "Sun, Sin & Suburbia: An Essential History of Modern Las Vegas" and "Howard Hughes: Power, Paranoia & Palace Intrigue." His column appears Sunday.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	14 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on July 13, 2008 01:14 AM: Seriously, Geoff a family member used to work with you and tells me you're and O.K. guy - I'll take the time to train you professionally - for free! Contemplate these quotes: "It is your DUTY as an American to own a gun and know how to use it legally!" "How many live could be saved each day if all law abiding citizens were well trained and armed?" "Politicians prefer Unarmed Peasants!" Legal gun ownership is at the heart of PRACTICAL pacifism - may I recommend, my favorites, a .45 Caliber ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) with a short barrel for back-up, AND a Model 500 Super 8 (8 Round capcity loaded with altenating buck shot and slugs) in a Mossberg 12 Gauge Shotgun - it's a winning combination for survival! Of course, it's important to have a solid understanding of the laws of self-defense and a good background in mixed martial arts as well - think of it not only as a duty, but a fun hobby! It really helps when you know your chances are about 1 in 4 when you walk out your door? Living free is all about making fear your friend and refusing to submit to the insanity of an uncivilized, self-destructive, criminal society going amoke! Join us Geoff! With some study and a lot of regular practice, you, too, can learn the discipline it takes to know when to draw, and draw fast - "double tap" your target and live to explain how you exercised your Constitutional right in an American court of law! Come on Geoff! It's not like I'm asking you to enlist and do a tour in combat, or change careers and go through the police academy? It's all about getting your head right about our rights, doing your duty as an American, and a lot of practice! Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on July 13, 2008 12:56 AM: BTW: I'm a DEMOCRAT and a proud member of the NRA and the Nevada Democratic Outdoor Caucus (NODC) - commonly known as "Them Darn Dems with Guns" - and Nevada's strong support of our 2nd Amendment rights had a great deal to do with my choosing to retire from the U. S. Armed Forces in Nevada! Unlike our posing patriot Governor Gibbons - some of us actually practice monthly and keep current on our testing and licensing privelages! $5,000 for a bullet - that's not funny! How would you feel about having to pay $5,000 for every word you right? Get real Geoff, you're a better reporter than to try and make fun of such a fundamentally important American right! The solution is to start treating all these criminal gangs for what they are - TERRORISTS! Let loose our law enforcement professionals so they can start kicking in doors and putting all these gangsters in jail, one-at-a-time, until they get the message that crime with a gun does not pay! It's way past time that we start fully supporting our local police, sherrif, DEA and FBI - and our law abiding citizens at large - including our well armed veterans! Such thoughts scare some uniformed people - but, think about it, don't the criminals scare you more? Stop being emotionally irrational about gun ownership - for law abiding citizens it's a really good, and All-American thing! I mean, really, Geoff, who you gonna call? In my neighborhood, we call the police - then, my neighbors call guys like me! YOU should be part of the "militia" Geoff! Give me a call, or drop me an e-mail and I'll be happy to take you down to the local gun shop and range, get you well informed and trained for free! Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on July 13, 2008 12:42 AM: What so many don't understand is that the original "well regulated militia" was made up of common, law abiding, pattiotic citizens - and a few of us still hold that status! On top of being an active duty combat veteran, and a veteran of the Army Reserves and Army National Guard - I remain a common, law abiding, patriotic citizen - and that makes me a member of the "well regulated militia" any way you want to define it! And, thankfully, though our numbers are diminishing in this dumb-downed, idiotic society in denial - I am NOT alone and there are still millions of common, law abiding, patriotic citizens and former soldiers! With every right comes responsibility! Responsible 2nd Amendment supporting Americans agree that we do NOT want felons owning firearms of any kind! Felons may have "done their time for their crime" but they have forfeited their privelage of owning a firearm - and if we ever enforced the rule of "doing a crime with a gun and you never, ever, see the sun" - life without any chance of parole, and if we enforced the death penalty (in a timely manner) for any criminal that actually fired a shot in the perfomance of a crime) we'd see a lot less gun crime from these idiots! Geoff, I own firearms, first and foremost because the Founders taught us NOT to trust our government and I need it for self-defense! Perhaps you live in a gated community with a well trained, privately funded police force? I, like most Nevadans and Americans, am not so fortunate, and do not live in such a secure environment! No one wants a "police state" but I do wish we had about twice as many police as we currently do - I love our police and armed citizens! John Galt wrote on July 07, 2008 03:03 PM: Unfortunately, Schumacher is correct -- the court ruling was narrow and there will be many local gun laws to fight to repeal. I wish the court had ruled more broadly. Many "progressive" city governments and lawyers are plotting right now how to get around this ruling. Don wrote on July 07, 2008 09:48 AM: You are a butthead...and a crybaby. post this one, i bet not. bandofotters wrote on July 07, 2008 06:08 AM: "If a bullet cost $5,000, there's be no more innocent bystanders," the comedian says. "People would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost $5,000." I wonder what Justice Scalia has to say about that? ***************************** ...probably the same as he would say about imposing a poll tax or a literacy test. tim wrote on July 06, 2008 07:59 PM: second ammendment,the original homeland security dept. geoff,may you cower in your house,you deserve it. Pat Gallotta wrote on July 06, 2008 04:27 PM: I suspect that should Geoff ever suffer the terrifying feeling of helplessness at being unarmed and facing an armed assailant, he may back-peddle considerably on his stance against the right to bear arms. Like, What the hell was I thinking!? Bill wrote on July 06, 2008 02:29 PM: Geoff, you're such a typical liberal twit. First you write, "Criminals, it seems, aren't deterred much by such ordinances." Gee, really??? Then you write, "Short of a ban, we must do everything we can to regulate the distribution of guns, especially those such as handguns commonly used in the commission of violent crime." Guess what, Geoff, handguns are also commonly used by law abiding people defending themselves against the criminals who don't care about your bans. It's not about "gun rights", it's about "self defense rights". Get with it. JJJ wrote on July 06, 2008 11:17 AM: "Gun registration, background checks and other regulations will remain in effect in most parts of the country, and thankfully so." First off Geoff, it is FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECKS which applies to all of the country. "Short of a ban, we must do everything we can to regulate the distribution of guns, especially those such as handguns commonly used in the commission of violent crime." Secondly, isn't that why we have the BACKGROUND CHECKS, to regulate who is LEGALY allowed to own guns? Again this comes back to CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND NEVER WILL. Third, I have to agree with NLV Resident, what is there to be proud of reading both sides of the case or any case? This should be standard for anyone writing on any subject. And yes Vegas Vic, none of my guns have jump off the table and ran out on to the street and shot anyone. I have been watching them for many years and so far I haven't seen the slightest twitch out of any of them. Read All Comments