Our Say: High court's ruling doesn't endanger sensible gun control

Published 06/29/08

We have long supported reasonable gun control. There's nothing wrong in principle with licensing and registration. Government has an obligation to keep guns out of the grasp of felons and the mentally ill. And just as the Constitution's First Amendment free speech protection doesn't confer a right to commit libel or sell pornography, the Second Amendment doesn't confer a right to own an assault weapon - or a howitzer.

For all that, we've never bought the argument that no individual right to gun ownership can be found in the Constitution. That's why we have no problem with the U.S. Supreme Court's...

This story has expired!
You can purchase the full text in our news archives.

YOUR COMMENTS

RULES OF PARTICIPATION

If you encounter other problems, please email ewiffin@capitalgazette.com and include your name, username, and any errors or messages that are displayed. The more information you can provide, the better able we will be to assist you.

In order to post or vote on a comment, you must be signed in with a hometownannapolis account.

Take a look at a summary of Commenting Guidelines.

Report Abuse or Vote In order to allow the user community the ability to collectively rank the value of comments posted on the Capital Gazette websites we have implemented a thumbs-up/down system. All logged-in users may participate by voting up/down each comment. If others vote on your comment, your individual score will go up/down depending on the votes. Initially, everyone starts with a score of zero, and must earn credits to have significant voting weight. Individuals with higher scores will have more voting weight. 0

2nd Amendment - 2008-07-01 10:56:42

A. Tate is correct. The 2nd amendment was to protect the peoples rights to have arms so they could protect themselves from the government if need be. Remember they had just fought a war over there freedom from an oppressive government and they wanted to ensure future citizens would be able to do the same should the need arise. They fully expected there would be need from time to time to oust those in government and start fresh. Because of this any and all gun control aimed at preventing ownership is in fact unconstitutional but politicians like to twist meanings to get what they want. If we take the true purpose of the amendment to its fullest then government could not legally prevent its citizens from arming themselves in any way they felt was necessary to protect themselves from the government. So it would be constitutional for a private citizen to stockpile nukes in his basement. Licensing on the other hand is a grey area. Is that prevention of ownership or can you say there not prevented so long as they meet the requirements? Constitutionally I would say licensing is a violation however practically it definitely should be done if for nothing more then keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill and children. Criminals are going to get them no matter what the law says. If they followed the law they wouldn?t be criminals would they? Criminals laugh at gun control, it actually makes there chosen profession easier. It?s much easier to control unarmed people and that brings us right back to the purpose of the Amendment in the first place. Of course it doesn?t say protection from criminals? just governments but the idea is pretty much the same.

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?

K. Overman - arnold, MD - Karma: Bad

Licensing & Registration? - 2008-07-01 07:45:06

Since when do you need a license for a right? Do you need a license to vote? Do you need a license to speak freely? do you need a license to choose your faith? A license can be revoked at any time without due process, a right cannot. Registration has only one use, it makes it easier to confiscate your firearms at a later date.

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?

Jim Devereaux - Philadelphia, PA - Karma: Bad

Types of Weapons - 2008-06-30 19:31:51

The fact that a weapon is auto or semi-auto is not pertinent. If you READ what the founding fathers had to say ,then you will establish that the whole intent of the 2nd amendment is for the people to be able to rise up against an oppressive government. So I ask you how can that be an option if the people are told what they may own. Sporting and hunting are NEVER mentioned in the constitution or the federalist papers. Just remember , if you dont think that combative weapons are necessary today then maybe you should consider how the Jews fell hostage to Nazi Germany. They were disarmed. We should never fall victim to the lie that this could never happen again. Take a stand for liberty.

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?

A. Tate - Nacogdoches, TX - Karma: Bad

'Assault Weapons' - 2008-06-30 13:40:25

You write that the 2nd Amendment doesn't confer a right to own assault weapons. In my opinion, the validity of that statement depends a great deal on how one defines assault weapons.

Using the Department of Defense definition, assault weapons are light fully automatic weapons intended to be carried by individual soldiers. Assault weapons include the M-16 and AK-47. The Supreme Court wrote in the ruling that the ruling does not apply to fully automatic weapons. So if The DOD definition matches yours, I would say you are correct.

The problem is that many gun control organizations, and other left-leaning organizations (including many newspapers) attempt to define assault weapons far more expansively, considering many more firearms to be assault weapons than the original definition. This is done simply to further their goals of banning as many firearms as possible. In general, they add firearms that are only semi-automatic (not machineguns) that have a military appearance. In my opinion, the Supreme Court ruling protects those weapons as they are already in "common" civilian use. The semiautomatic AR-15 has been available to civilians for over 40 years and is legal in one form or another in all 50 states (in a few states, such as Maryland, the pistol grip must be removed and the magazine fixed). The gun is common, and can easily be used for self defense.

Having read the opinion, I believe that common semiautomatic rifles and pistols are, in fact, protected under the recent ruling, just as all common firearms are. Semi-automatic operation was not one of the disqualifying factors that were enumerated in the Supreme Court's decision.

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?

Bob McBob - Rockford, IL - Karma: Bad

It's ironic - 2008-06-30 09:11:56

It's ironic, but strong Constitutional protection for the right of citizens in good standing to own and carry firearms makes it easier to enact reasonable gun control laws against criminals. Because information gathered by registration and background checks can be used to infringe the right to keep and bear arms -- when the government refuses to rule out that possibility we cannot trust the government with such information.

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?

Frank S. - Memphis, TN - Karma: Bad