Of course it never has been really dead. It just lays there waiting for some controversy to nudge it. Then it stands up and waves a bloody shirt at us as if to blame us for what it has allowed.
I'm speaking of the gun-control movement, of course and this is what I was greeted with on this rainy Easter morning.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Susan Nielsen
The Supreme Court should take a little field trip this spring before handing down a historic ruling that could undercut the nation's most basic gun restrictions.
Perhaps to North Portland, where a spate of shootings has frayed people's nerves. Or Cleveland High School in Southeast Portland, which went into lockdown last spring after a gun scare. Or maybe Gresham, where a man recently shot his 51-year-old wife in the back of the head while she slept and called it a "mercy killing."
An outing like this might force the court's conservative majority to consider something other than their precious ideological purity. It might shame them into caring more about Americans who face danger today than the romanticized pioneers of centuries past.
I doubt it, based on these justices' track record of gutting laws that protect citizens. But it might.
Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case about the constitutionality of a handgun ban in the District of Columbia. The court's ruling will be the first major gun decision since 1939. Surprisingly, it's also the court's first real attempt to settle a longstanding legal debate: Does the Second Amendment protect only the right of the people to form militias, or does it also protect an individual right to own guns?
The suspense may puzzle anyone who, like me, thought the right to own guns was as sacred and settled as the Ten Commandments. Turns out it isn't. Most lower courts have ruled in favor of the collective right, not the individual right. The ease of arming yourself like Rambo has more to do with the power of the National Rifle Association than the guidance of the Supreme Court.
Ideally, the high court would show some judicial restraint and take a narrow approach, in the spirit of former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. It would strike down D.C.'s unreasonable handgun ban, while allowing modest regulations that tread lightly on citizens' implicit right of self-defense.
In this ideal world, the court also would heed the advice of Paul Clement, the Bush administration's solicitor general. He pleaded with the court to avoid a decision so sweeping that it would, for example, make Congress unable to regulate machine guns.
But I'm not holding my breath for moderation.
The court's conservative quintet seemed eager to enshrine gun ownership as an individual right. Depending on their approach, they may open the door to striking down waiting periods and other prudent restrictions designed to prevent violent or mentally ill people from obtaining weapons.
In other words, they could land somewhere near Vice President Dick Cheney, who signed an amicus brief urging the court to limit government restrictions on gun ownership. This is a man who believes in the constitutional right to shoot your friends in the face, and he's Justice Antonin Scalia's hunting buddy.
During last week's oral arguments, Scalia bloviated about the Founders while showing typical disdain for facts that contradict his opinions. Justice Anthony Kennedy waxed rhapsodic about pioneer men protecting their families from Indians and grizzlies. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, for his part, seemed reluctant to follow Clement's advice for a clear and reasonable limit to an individual's constitutional right to own guns.
"We are starting afresh," Roberts said, as if the nation were his blank slate.
Whew. These people need to exit their chambers and book a flight to anywhere. While it's crucial they protect the bedrock principle of self-defense, they also need to consider the issue from the other end of the gun.
Maybe talk to any lawmaker, college president or police officer entrusted with public safety. Or to the families of victims of gun violence. These real-life citizens could explain the parts of a school shooting or domestic homicide that aren't academic.
But our judges are too busy "starting afresh," as the chief justice put it.
This court is too busy making history.
Associate Editor Susan Nielsen: 503-221-8153; susannielsen@news.oregonian.com
I'm speaking of the gun-control movement, of course and this is what I was greeted with on this rainy Easter morning.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Susan Nielsen
The Supreme Court should take a little field trip this spring before handing down a historic ruling that could undercut the nation's most basic gun restrictions.
Perhaps to North Portland, where a spate of shootings has frayed people's nerves. Or Cleveland High School in Southeast Portland, which went into lockdown last spring after a gun scare. Or maybe Gresham, where a man recently shot his 51-year-old wife in the back of the head while she slept and called it a "mercy killing."
An outing like this might force the court's conservative majority to consider something other than their precious ideological purity. It might shame them into caring more about Americans who face danger today than the romanticized pioneers of centuries past.
I doubt it, based on these justices' track record of gutting laws that protect citizens. But it might.
Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case about the constitutionality of a handgun ban in the District of Columbia. The court's ruling will be the first major gun decision since 1939. Surprisingly, it's also the court's first real attempt to settle a longstanding legal debate: Does the Second Amendment protect only the right of the people to form militias, or does it also protect an individual right to own guns?
The suspense may puzzle anyone who, like me, thought the right to own guns was as sacred and settled as the Ten Commandments. Turns out it isn't. Most lower courts have ruled in favor of the collective right, not the individual right. The ease of arming yourself like Rambo has more to do with the power of the National Rifle Association than the guidance of the Supreme Court.
Ideally, the high court would show some judicial restraint and take a narrow approach, in the spirit of former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. It would strike down D.C.'s unreasonable handgun ban, while allowing modest regulations that tread lightly on citizens' implicit right of self-defense.
In this ideal world, the court also would heed the advice of Paul Clement, the Bush administration's solicitor general. He pleaded with the court to avoid a decision so sweeping that it would, for example, make Congress unable to regulate machine guns.
But I'm not holding my breath for moderation.
The court's conservative quintet seemed eager to enshrine gun ownership as an individual right. Depending on their approach, they may open the door to striking down waiting periods and other prudent restrictions designed to prevent violent or mentally ill people from obtaining weapons.
In other words, they could land somewhere near Vice President Dick Cheney, who signed an amicus brief urging the court to limit government restrictions on gun ownership. This is a man who believes in the constitutional right to shoot your friends in the face, and he's Justice Antonin Scalia's hunting buddy.
During last week's oral arguments, Scalia bloviated about the Founders while showing typical disdain for facts that contradict his opinions. Justice Anthony Kennedy waxed rhapsodic about pioneer men protecting their families from Indians and grizzlies. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, for his part, seemed reluctant to follow Clement's advice for a clear and reasonable limit to an individual's constitutional right to own guns.
"We are starting afresh," Roberts said, as if the nation were his blank slate.
Whew. These people need to exit their chambers and book a flight to anywhere. While it's crucial they protect the bedrock principle of self-defense, they also need to consider the issue from the other end of the gun.
Maybe talk to any lawmaker, college president or police officer entrusted with public safety. Or to the families of victims of gun violence. These real-life citizens could explain the parts of a school shooting or domestic homicide that aren't academic.
But our judges are too busy "starting afresh," as the chief justice put it.
This court is too busy making history.
Associate Editor Susan Nielsen: 503-221-8153; susannielsen@news.oregonian.com
